This week’s winner of the “Ignoranus Award” — what the Washington Post Style Invitational once defined as “someone who is both stupid and an asshole” — goes to James Conca for his Sept. 1, 2013 Forbes piece titled, “Who Told Vermont To Be Stupid?” In it, Conca writes that:

“The Great State of Vermont threw away cheap clean energy this week out of ignorance and fear. Vermont chose to be stupid, and will hurt the environment as a sidebar.”

After paying lip service to the “official reasons” Entergy cited for closing the 41-year-old plant, Conga declared that “we all know the real reason. Nasty politics and ignorance. The latter is forgivable and rectifiable with a little homework. The former is not.”

Ugh. There’s nothing more infuriating than someone smugly calling you stupid and lazy for not doing your homework — who was too lazy to do his own. Here are some quotes from the author who claims to “cover the underlying drivers of energy, technology and society.” It appears he could use some extra time in study hall: 

Staff Writer Ken Picard is a senior staff writer at Seven Days. A Long Island, N.Y., native who moved to Vermont from Missoula, Mont., he was hired in 2002 as Seven Days’ first staff writer, to help create a news department. Ken has since won numerous regional and national awards for his features, profiles and investigative stories and had his work picked up by international news outlets. He was the first journalist to shine a light on the thousands of undocumented workers in Vermont’s dairy...

29 replies on “Forbes Calls Vermonters “Stupid” For Closing Vermont Yankee”

  1. That’s your opinion and as I’ve said before you’re entitled to it.
    Conca says that Entergy was unaware of the fight in Vermont and out gunned by anti-nukes. At best that is laughable. I thought I was pretty clear in pointing out that there was an army of lobbyists working on Entergy’s behalf. On our side we had James Moore, of VPIRG, and me.
    That’s a fact, not an opinion. You are free to interpret my words any way you wish. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

  2. Bob, I did read the article and if you do so objectively you see that Mr Conca is correct on the facts. Where he fails is in presenting them in a way so there is no doubt what he is saying or getting at.
    You highlighted where you disagree and Bob, those are not facts. Most of your responses aren’t even addressing his actual statements, the rest are arguing semantics and opinions. You come off as an argumentative two year old on a nationally read website. Get a grip on yourself Bob.
    I’m not going to go through and pick things apart, I’ve pointed out two already and the best you came up with was ‘in your opinion he was attempting to mislead his readers…’
    you are guessing about his motives and that my friend is why you look the fool…

  3. Actually, that’s not true. I would be delighted if Mr. Conca had a valid point. Like I said, to the average reader, one could be led to believe that Vermont relies heavily on this plant. As you know, we’ve not relied on the plant for over a year.
    Go a read Conca’s article.. He lectures Vermont and Shumlin about doing homework, yet when it comes to it, his column is distorted, wrong on facts and misleading. He holds himself out as a scientist who does the necessary research.
    Somewhere along the line the man is lying. Either he didn’t do the research, in which case he has no right to lecture others; or he did do the research and is intentionally misleading people.
    I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he was true to his word and did his homework, and thus intentionally untruthful.
    Like I said, go read his column and get back to me. I may be away from my computer and unable to promptly reply to your kind words.

  5. You would argue that because you don’t want Conca to have a valid point. Your bias is so great that your perceive all points that show VY had some benefit as intentionally misleading and inaccurate. Perception maybe reality but that doesn’t mean your not delusional.

  6. I would argue that Conca was attempting to (mis)lead people to believe that 70% of Vt’s power came from this plant.

  7. As a member of the
    Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), how will Vermont square this huge
    increase with other members?

    VERONT STOPPED BUYING VY POWER OVER A YEAR
    AGO AND THUS FAR HAS NOT EXPERIENCED “HUGE INCREASES”.
    Again, you have no idea what you are talking about… you aren’t even addressing his point. VT was selling carbon offsets based on the power coming from VY. That no longer will happen and now VT will have to alter the sales they have with the RGGI. They may even have to start buying them…
    Before you bitch about others not doing their homework…

  8. YES, 70% OF THE POWER PRODUCED
    INSIDE VERMONT CAME FROM THIS PLANT, BUT AT NO TIME DID VERMONT EVERY RELY ON
    70% OF THIS POWER. TYPICALLY, WHEN I FEEL
    SOMEONE IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING ME (MUCH LIKE ENTERGY’S EXECUTIVES BEFORE
    THE PSB I TEND TO LOSE RESPECT FOR THEM).
    Come on Bob, it’s clear Conca was making the point that 70% of the power produced came from VY…… VT is stupid because the carbon offsets they have been selling just went bye bye.

  9. “But this column by Conca is full of misleading statements.”
    As is the column by Picard, the difference of course is I’m not sticking up for Conca…

  10. I never mentioned the word “safety.” The fact that you raised that issue yourself, and deny that the Legislature regulated it, shows how defensive you are about it. The federal judges were right.
    And “dialog?” You don’t “dialog” with anyone.

Comments are closed.