In defense of Coolreit's skepticism
First, I totally agree with Wilk’s argument that “Complaining about the numbers is like screaming in a locked sound booth, it is futile.”
But I’m not sure I concur with the statement “The numbers are the numbers”. In fact, these data come from mathematical models that have a significant number of underlying assumptions and depend upon reports from a number of different organizations and groups. Many readers here have worked with such models and are well aware that even modest tweaks can change the outcome. I’ve been somewhat suspect of the EIA numbers for years and, since they took the hiatus in the summer to reorganize their methodologies, I have been even more skeptical. Their explanation of why this was done and what happened left a great deal to be desired. All it would take would be to modify a few assumptions under the argument that it improves the model. We do that all the time in modeling.
EIA is a political organization and so is API. We live with the numbers because that’s all we have-- and in that sense Wilks is correct. But I don’t think any of us believe the data presented are totally accurate representations of reality. They are the product of idealizations, assumptions and errors in reporting ---and no doubt sometimes the result of deliberate misrepresentation.