Our blogger friend over at the WSJ’s Environmental Capital is still busy shouting at Gabriel Calzada et al.’s research — when he’s not trying to discredit the researchers — which shows that there was no green-jobs boom in Spain, and in fact renewable-energy schemes increased unemployment in that country, whose 18-percent unemployment rate should soon climb past 20 percent. That unenviable economic program remains President Obama’s model for the U.S. to follow.

Our EC correspondent does seem to have got it right, however, that the transcript (I’m traveling, and I only see the excerpt he offers) is at odds with El Mundo’s description of his remarks reported yesterday. I regret having passed along that misrepresentation.

But our interlocutor then goes on to helpfully reveal the political prism through which he views this rather ideological struggle (El Mundo is “conservative”? That’s news to all but some rather steeply leftward Spaniards, and maybe the folks who offered the ad hominem smear for EC’s first item on Prof. Calzada’s work).

He then asks a good question: Why does President Clinton disagree with the research? Clinton seems to believe that saying he’s willing to tell us why is as good as telling us why. But I’m guessing that — like the Obama spokesperson who dismissed Calzada’s study while admitting he’d not read it — this is not borne of any particular understanding of or research into the economic data. And that he, like Environmental Capital, has not in fact refuted its findings concerning employment avoided (“lost”) or real jobs exported from Spain as a result — some of which are in Kentucky.

So let’s hear substance — not ad hominem — about the study. Over the next few days, we expect to see the renewable industry’s coordinated response, and the that early indications that it will feature more of the latter than the former. What’s so frightening about countering the facts. Anybody? Hello?