Still waiting for the follow-up and correction on your

"Global Midieval [sic] Warm Period" post:

https://nlt.ashbrook.org/2012/03/the-global-midieval-warm-period.php

The lead researcher on the study you referred to has directly contradicted your and Hayward's take on the research as "completely misrepresent(ing) [their] conclusions."

He is completly misrepresenting almost everything. It is a stylistic or rhetorical choice (Fast and Loose).

If he corrects too many details then it is no longer obviously puffery/political fiction. At some point it would become bad legal writting. Accurate to a point where the reader can take the writting at face value, and then be worried.

Take for example this paragraph:

"But we haven't yet rid ourselves of radical environmentalism. Case in point: The new and improved $60 "Earth Day" light bulb. I don't expect this novelty to win over any new converts, but the fact that the Obama administration spent $10 million dollars during an economic crisis for a more expensive light bulb (and spent who knows how much political capital to pass legislation forcing Americans to buy said light bulb) reveals the lingering influence of the green industrial complex."

radical environmentalism+ green industrial complex are sort of jokes. People who care a bit too much about the environment, and companies that make more energy efficient products continue to coexist. It is even questionable if we want to basically eliminate such concerned citizens or such products. (I am kidding, I certainly don't) "Radical environmentalist", i.e. lawyers who want to help save salamanders pursuant to state versions of the ESA, are sometimes a pain in the ass to developers, but of course "radical libertarians", i.e. lawyers who want to stop Kelo type emminent domain actions are also sometimes a pain in the ass to developers. Still each works to ensure land use that reflects the policy concerns of every day americans.

In my opinion it is sad, that our manufacturing base has deteriorated to the point where we don't have the supply chain to make these innovative green technologies at home. Why is the phillips light bulb so expensive? If the guaranteed reward is 10 million and most of it has to be made in america, then that is a lot of micro-engineering.

In the middle of a recession we should spend considerably more than 10 million dollars on the development of better technology.

We should push billions of dollars into this type of X-prize/L-prize R+D.

On the other hand this 10 million dollars of spending actually was not part of any stimulus. It was passed by Bush +congress in 2007.

In 2007 there was no real political capital aligned against the L-prize, there also was no noise about the phase out of the incandescent light bulb when Bush signed it in 2007.

So it isn't even true that Obama spent the money.

Nor is this a fair question: "and spent who knows how much political capital to pass legislation forcing Americans to buy said light bulb."

Almost none at the time(2007), but in 2010 a lot of money was wasted on this, and the subsidy of other horrendous arguments none of which follow the constitutional mandate in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 to "advance the progress of science and the useful arts." (or do they? see Infra)

Also it isn't true that Americans will be forced to buy a $60 lightbulb. Even "dumb ass"(I am one of them from time to time) Wal Mart shoppers know that you can still buy a wide selection of light bulbs for good value.

In fact what is ridiculously ironic about Justin's originalist writting is that the advancement "of progress of science and the useful arts" is actually the copyright clause.

Here he is "advancing science and the useful arts" by essentially puffing and fixing political facts in a tangible medium of expression with a considerable amount of shall we say: "originality".

Much better perhaps if good lightbulbs and the engineering know how to make them where seen in a better light than than Justin's style of political commentary.