> "I haven't read the study but maybe it's wrong and maybe the real number is way way less"? C'mon. Give me a break. Trusting that an EIA report is generally ac

> "I haven't read the study but maybe it's wrong and maybe the real number is way way less"? C'mon. Give me a break. Trusting that an EIA report is generally accurate is not evidence of being "emotional." Handwaving it away without even reading it is. That's not what I said. I said the author of the article did read the study and describes it as possibly wrong. In fact the article does actually mention a range given, "0.6% to 2.3%", which isn't orders-of-magnitude huge but nearly a 1:4 ratio. Usually if someone says, "I have this big scary number," and you find out the actual number is 25% of what they told you, you're allowed to be skeptical of the conclusions they draw from their math.