Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting article from SEIA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting article from SEIA

    Hi All,

    I found a link to this article today and thought I should share it.

    http://www.seia.org/blog/critics-twi...nergy-industry

  • #2
    So exactly what did the Feds pay out last year?
    NABCEP certified Technical Sales Professional

    [URL="http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showthread.php?5334-Solar-Off-Grid-Battery-Design"]http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showth...Battery-Design[/URL]

    [URL]http://www.calculator.net/voltage-drop-calculator.html[/URL] (Voltage drop Calculator among others)

    [URL="http://www.gaisma.com"]www.gaisma.com[/URL]

    Comment


    • #3
      Who knows who paid who but you can be sure the fossil fuel industry always pays less.

      Originally posted by Naptown View Post
      So exactly what did the Feds pay out last year?
      Who knows who paid who, but you can be sure the fossil fuel industry always pays less.

      Comment


      • #4
        Interesting article

        Comment


        • #5
          I like these words by Mark Twain, which was cited in this article.
          Last edited by russ; 04-29-2015, 02:09 AM. Reason: removed ad
          Quality Solar Panels and Lights at Grecosolar.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by solar pete View Post
            Hi All,

            I found a link to this article today and thought I should share it.

            http://www.seia.org/blog/critics-twi...nergy-industry
            The article confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time. Although some around here refuse to see it, entrenched fossil fuel interests have vast quantities of money to throw around to manipulate public opinion on critical environmental issues. Unfortunately it works.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ian S View Post
              The article confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time. Although some around here refuse to see it, entrenched fossil fuel interests have vast quantities of money to throw around to manipulate public opinion on critical environmental issues. Unfortunately it works.
              While I take most everything industry rags on all sides say with a big grain of salt, I'm sure there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. But, I'd also wonder: So what's new? Outfits spend money to promote their agenda and manipulate public opinion and political policy. Big outfits spend big money. The SEIA blurb is no different than the power industry lobbies - just that SEIA probably has less $$ to spend. It's just business.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ian S View Post
                The article confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time. Although some around here refuse to see it, entrenched fossil fuel interests have vast quantities of money to throw around to manipulate public opinion on critical environmental issues. Unfortunately it works.
                Congrats Ian - Whining and crying while stretching it as per usual. The biggest manipulations of public opinion today are from the green side.
                [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ian S View Post
                  The article confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time. Although some around here refuse to see it, entrenched fossil fuel interests have vast quantities of money to throw around to manipulate public opinion on critical environmental issues. Unfortunately it works.
                  I agree with you that Big Money can and does persuade people's opinion on a lot of issues.

                  The other way to get people to believe in what you want them to is to use [B]FEAR[/B]. While a glitzy expensive advertisement will get your attention, a very graphic picture showing something awful that can happen to you will get more attention for less money.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by russ View Post
                    Congrats Ian - Whining and crying while stretching it as per usual. The biggest manipulations of public opinion today are from the green side.
                    If you don't like my comment, why don't you just delete it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                      While I take most everything industry rags on all sides say with a big grain of salt, I'm sure there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. But, I'd also wonder: So what's new? Outfits spend money to promote their agenda and manipulate public opinion and political policy. Big outfits spend big money. The SEIA blurb is no different than the power industry lobbies - just that SEIA probably has less $$ to spend. It's just business.
                      Well, the article describes a somewhat more insidious manipulation where Koch-backed groups apparently get their bought-and-paid-for politicians to force a government agency, the EIA, to produce a research document with a very narrowly limited scope designed to mislead with respect to the true extent of energy subsidies. In effect, the Koch brothers get the government to help with their misleading attacks on wind and solar.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ian S View Post
                        Well, the article describes a somewhat more insidious manipulation where Koch-backed groups apparently get their bought-and-paid-for politicians to force a government agency, the EIA, to produce a research document with a very narrowly limited scope designed to mislead with respect to the true extent of energy subsidies. In effect, the Koch brothers get the government to help with their misleading attacks on wind and solar.
                        Per SEIA, an industry group. What reason would I have, or could you or anyone else give me to trust them to deliver the unbiased, unvarnished truth more than any other individual with a dog in the fight - big oil, the POCOs, drug cos. ?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                          Per SEIA, an industry group. What reason would I have, or could you or anyone else give me to trust them to deliver the unbiased, unvarnished truth more than any other individual with a dog in the fight - big oil, the POCOs, drug cos. ?
                          What SEIA claims is easily verified by reading the EIA report. It clearly doesn't approach the issue either comprehensively or within historical context. I don't blame the EIA: they probably have little leeway when dealing with Congressional requests, rather it's a corrupt system.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ian S View Post
                            What SEIA claims is easily verified by reading the EIA report. It clearly doesn't approach the issue either comprehensively or within historical context. I don't blame the EIA: they probably have little leeway when dealing with Congressional requests, rather it's a corrupt system.
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ian S View Post
                              What SEIA claims is easily verified by reading the EIA report. It clearly doesn't approach the issue either comprehensively or within historical context. I don't blame the EIA: they probably have little leeway when dealing with Congressional requests, rather it's a corrupt system.
                              Poor baby! Anything you don't like is corrupt? Anyone not green blowing money on politics is bad? What about the unions spending money for one party?

                              Grow up and get a pair.
                              [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X