Carl, I have some complaints that are strictly about style issues, and some about substance. In addition, I have complaints about your referencing of authority. First, your methos of linking sources to your text definately could be improved. You tend to link each word to a seperate text. Frequently you offer a phrrase, each word of which is linked to a different source. This is confusing, to say the least, because some times the links lead to a definition or explanation, and some times the links lead to data. You overwealm your readers and then express suprise that they did not catch on to the links that provided real data.
I have a second major complaint, that is the use of a paper by Amory Lovins which you appear to treat as authoritative. I have posted numerous critical posts on Mr. Lovins, but the most important of which is one titled, Amory Lovins Discredited. My reason for describing Amory Lovins as discredited, is that David Bradish had published a six part critique of Amory Lovins work, in which Bradish documented numerous flaws and mistakes in Lovins work. Lovens undertook to respond to Bradish's critique, but some what less than half way through the debate, Lovins dropped out. In his last comment before he Dropped out of the Debate, Lovins promised to finish responding to Bradish. Lovins failure to respond to Bradish is a serious laps in scientific professionalism, and his failure to respond to other serious and distinguished scientists critics marks him as no scientist.
I concluded my account of Lovins failure to respond to cogent criticism with this observation:
"This has been a very long post and I am by no means finished with my account of Amory Lovins failure to answer his critics. I will review other criticisms of Lovins in a future post and then offer some thoughts on Lovins reputation as an innovative thinker, and his motives for ignoring his critics. There can, however, be no doubt that Lovins, by his refusal to respond to numerous critics, and his failure to provide promised responses, has damaged his credibility."