The ethanol scam

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.


I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
that
is disputed, and rightly so.

You are mistaken.
There is a remarkable cooling since 1998 in global temperature

Huh? Not according to the graph in the link you posted
below. That shows a dip from 1980 to about 1986 but then
rises again

data due to increasing cosmic ray flux.

Oh! Puleeeze. I think you should be renamed Müllbauer.

Bet that was your nickname at school, hehe.

http://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GT.jpg

Human activity might contribute to GW somehow on a very low level,
but it is neglegible and has no effect to the whole system.

That is not even intuitively correct, let alone empirically.

--
altheim

On Jul 20, 1:50 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote:
"Whata Fool" wrote in message
.. .
Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the better.

What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

A pro knows it is best not to drink it! ;-)
(At least not lab grade, which I believe will have some methanol in it.)

Invest in pond scum futures! Remember you read it here first! :-)

Laboratory grade ethanol will not have methanol in it - the methanol
will mess up chemical reactions where pure ethanol is expected...

denny

"Jim Burns" wrote:

Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks like

You've been had. That's a load of tabloid bs that was on UK4, not BBC.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
is disputed, and rightly so.

All science is disputed, all the time. That's how science works.

Science does not "prove" things; that's for mathematics. Science develops a
hypothesis, tests it against the evidence and, if the evidence supports the
hypothesis, creates a theory that must be testable, predictive and falsifiable
to be accepted as valid. But no scientific theory ever reaches a point where
it stops being modified by new data and methods of study.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has reached a stage where it is
generally accepted among the world scientific community as valid. Research
continues over many points still in contention, such as feedback influences.
That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
community that ACC is real. Those wishing to "shoot the messenger" often
resort to cherry picking facts from the various mini-controversies within the
overall research to cast doubt on the theory itself.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Eeyore" wrote:


The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy
IPCC case.


Post some.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

Graham

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has reached a stage where it is
generally accepted among the world scientific community as valid. Research
continues over many points still in contention, such as feedback influences.
That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
community that ACC is real. Those wishing to "shoot the messenger" often
resort to cherry picking facts from the various mini-controversies within the
overall research to cast doubt on the theory itself.

Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

In the case of climate change, the dollars at risk are so huge --
almost inconceivably large -- that it's hard to find a scientist who
hasn't been bought and sold by one side of the debate or the other.

I'm no scientist -- I'm a businessman. As such, I can smell a "deal"
when it is at work -- and IMHO "global warming" research has been
overwhelmingly tainted by the titanic sums of money that are at risk
on both sides of the issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Frankly, I haven't seen another source with actual facts that dispute
the figures in this "tiny website". If you have something to refute
the facts, let's see it. Until you do, your comments are, well,
sorry...stupid.

Here's one... just to help Stella out...
http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/Farre...ence012706.pdf




--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

"altheim" wrote

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.


I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
that
is disputed, and rightly so.

You are mistaken.
There is a remarkable cooling since 1998 in global temperature

Huh? Not according to the graph in the link you posted
below. That shows a dip from 1980 to about 1986 but then
rises again

data due to increasing cosmic ray flux.

Oh! Puleeeze. I think you should be renamed Müllbauer.

Bet that was your nickname at school, hehe.

You are simply an idiot, assheim.

*PLONK*

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:55:52 -0400, john smith wrote:

Sugar cane has a higher sugar (and therefore energy) content than corn.
Approximately 7-10 times the energy content of corn. A WSJ article this
week reported that a US university has modified a grass that can be broken
down without the use of acids and has an energy content 7 times greater
than corn.

This:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118403019523461642.html

?

Searching on the name of the grass (Miscanthus X giganteus) provides
quite a few additional links such as:

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/mis...iscanthus.html

But this is a specific example of a general trend that I hope we're
seeing. Biotech is still a relatively new field. And it's still
only just started to be directed to the idea of "fuel" over the past
ten years or so (at least as far as I've seen). I think/hope we're going
to see some interesting possibilities out of that area.

This does suggest, though, that government fiddling with the market such
that a "winner fuel" is chosen prematurely - esp. by the anti-scientists
currently in the administration - would be a bad thing. While Brazil
does seem to be doing well with sugar cane, our growth environment is
significantly different. And I think it would be repeating a mistake to
chose a fuel not easily/efficiently grown "at home".

BTW, searching on this grass also brings one to links regarding other
possible fuel "grasses".

- Andrew