Interesting article from SEIA

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[J.P.M.]

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.

[Ian S]

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.

[J.P.M.]

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. ?

[Ian S]

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.

[Ian S]

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?

[SunEagle]

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 FEAR. 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.

[russ]

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.

[J.P.M.]

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.

[Ian S]

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.

[GrecoSolar]

I like these words by Mark Twain, which was cited in this article.