To: ClearCase_guy; Upstate NY Guy
The 17% figure does stick out. I'd guess it was a number kicked out by a model saying algae could reach X percent of the market provided production reach Y level by year Z, with the following ABCDEFG assumptions about the conventional fuel supply, demand growth, and policy impacts on fuel economy. There is nothing wrong with using such a number as long as one cites the study. But here, it reads as if some careless WH speechwriter who doesn't understand the moving parts just grabbed the summary number, careless editors let it pass, and the teleprompter didn't know the difference.
Presidents should not say such things without anchoring them in context. A figure like that, if unsupported, is indicative of inattention and incompetence on the part of the whole team. If there was an accompanying fact sheet laying out the assumptions and math, I retract the judgment. One would expect diligent reporters to have questioned such a figure, but that doesn't seem to much happen in the court of Obama.
posted on 05/08/2012 3:19:02 AM PDT
...A figure like that, if unsupported, is indicative of inattention and incompetence on the part of the whole team.
I agree. It also indicates they believe their listening audience is not very bright. Which may be true for the most part. But it still bugs me.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson