Interesting article from SEIA

[Ian S]

Ian: I'm not trying to bust your onions here, but you appear to be saying the SEIA claims made in the article can be easily verified by a source which you claim doesn't approach the issue either comprehensively or within historical context, and also have little leeway when deal with congressional requests in a corrupt system. If what you write is correct, wouldn't that make the SEIA article untrustworthy ?

Reads to me like your sort of supplying more reasons for me to distrust one sided sources.

I really don't get your point. SEIA makes the claims that the EIA report is limited in what they consider a subsidy and basically only looks at a snapshot in time with no consideration that the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are at far different points in their subsidy timelines. Then you read the EIA report and it's clear that what the SEIA claims is accurate. It's obvious to me the Congressmen who asked for the study were only interested in a particular outcome: one that made wind and solar look bad. So we have an industry getting their bought and paid for politicians to push a neutral government agency, the EIA, to publish a misleading report - thus with the government's imprimatur - that makes business competitors look bad. The fossil fuel industry can then use that report to add credence to their own propaganda. It's a corrupt process IMHO.

[russ]

I really don't get your point. SEIA makes the claims that the EIA report is limited in what they consider a subsidy and basically only looks at a snapshot in time with no consideration that the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are at far different points in their subsidy timelines. Then you read the EIA report and it's clear that what the SEIA claims is accurate. It's obvious to me the Congressmen who asked for the study were only interested in a particular outcome: one that made wind and solar look bad. So we have an industry getting their bought and paid for politicians to push a neutral government agency, the EIA, to publish a misleading report - thus with the government's imprimatur - that makes business competitors look bad. The fossil fuel industry can then use that report to add credence to their own propaganda. It's a corrupt process IMHO.

SEIA is an uninterested 3rd party? Hardly - read their BS and it is obvious they are pushing the green line as hard as possible.

Again, corrupt for greens means anything that doesn't agree with their thoughts.

[Ian S]

SEIA is an uninterested 3rd party? Hardly - read their BS and it is obvious they are pushing the green line as hard as possible.

Again, corrupt for greens means anything that doesn't agree with their thoughts.

Russ, maybe I can make this simpler for you. First, I assume you mean "disinterested" as they are clearly not an "uninterested" party. But whether they are disinterested or not is irrelevant to my point. SEIA makes specific claims about the Energy Information Agency's (EIA's) report on what it does not include so you can read the EIA report and see for yourself if the claims made by SEIA are true or not. Simple as that. Here, I'll even spoonfeed you the actual report. Happy?

[russ]

Russ, maybe I can make this simpler for you. First, I assume you mean "disinterested" as they are clearly not an "uninterested" party. But whether they are disinterested or not is irrelevant to my point. SEIA makes specific claims about the Energy Information Agency's (EIA's) report on what it does not include so you can read the EIA report and see for yourself if the claims made by SEIA are true or not. Simple as that. Here, I'll even spoonfeed you the actual report. Happy?

Stick your spoon Ian - I have zero interest in your tripe.