Hey, look. The people who pledged to make the wind production tax credit “toxic” have released “a study” saying that the wind industry shouldn’t have a tax credit. And The Hill covered it because it’s super important, not because the organization is giving them money to do an event.

Dan DelucaA metaphor.

I put “a study” in quotes in that previous paragraph to suggest that I think that this was maybe not a very scientific study and was, instead, probably thrown together simply to bolster the point that the organization was trying to make in the first place. It’s like when you want to eat that leftover Halloween candy and you come up with reasons to eat the candy that are really stupid reasons — you had a salad for lunch? wow, great job — but you come up with them because you just want to eat the candy. It’s that, but instead of you trying to fool yourself it’s some group that advocates for fossil fuels trying to fool Congress. And luckily for them, it’s way easier for fossil fuel interests to fool Congress than it is for you to fool yourself into thinking that the giant Snickers you’re halfway through is in some way good for you or a justly deserved reward.

Reader support helps sustain our work. Donate today to keep our climate news free. All donations DOUBLED!

The “study” is called “Removing Big Wind’s ‘Training Wheels,'” which I bet the guys who wrote the report thought was fuuuuuunnnnnnny. The “training wheels,” see, are the production tax credit, the expiration of which could cost 37,000 jobs. But fuck those jerks, check out our sweet “training wheels” joke! We assume they’re fine with the “training wheels” that oil companies have been creaking along on for over a century.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Also, please note that the “study” is coincidentally timed so that it might bolster a Nov. 14 event that the “study”‘s creators are doing with the “media institution” that reported on the “study.” Normally, you might suspect that this is a conflict of interest, until you realize how totally sound this research from an admittedly biased organization must be.

In the interests of journalism, I didn’t actually read the report, but I feel completely comfortable assuming that when you open it up a phone book and some shredded newspaper and an apple core fall out.