The ethanol scam

"Jay Honeck" wrote:


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

So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the subject?
Why bother doing any science at all?


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.

That would certainly apply to the few climate scientists who work for the
energy companies. Who "buys and sells" the rest of the scientists in the
world?


I'm no scientist -- I'm a businessman.

Same here. That doesn't stop me from studying the subject carefully.

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.

Do you use a lawn mower to wax the floor? Why use business knowledge to
judge a scientific subject? Why not find out how science really works?

--
Dan

"Gut feeling"

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

Dan Luke wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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

So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is) 'consensus' proves nothing.

I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC case ? A
convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on making such
claims.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote:

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.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

--
altheim

"Eeyore" wrote:


So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is)

Really?

======================
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686


IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific
bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the
matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of
Sciences report, 'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions',
begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment
is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The
IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this
issue."

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical
Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all
have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human
modification of climate is compelling.

======================

Perhaps you can offer some evidence in refutation of the above.



'consensus' proves nothing.

Correct. But to wave it away on no empirical basis is foolish.


I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC case
?

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such objections, and
have not found any that are destructive to the case made in IPCC 4AR.

I'd be grateful if you could post links to some that you think are 'very well
argued.'


convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on making
such
claims.

You mean claims like the one made by deniers that all the IPCC scientists are
distorting the findings so they'll get paid?


--
Dan


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."


- John Derbyshire

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote:
"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*

Ouch! nono c'mon, take me outta there. It's no good hiding your
head in the sand y'know. It's your own fault - you shouldn't have
mentioned "cosmic ray flux".

--
altheim

altheim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
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.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some one
who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is that
CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and temperature
numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at temperature,
when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant growth. Hey, they say,
the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2. Err.... right. What did they expect ?

Graham

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jay Honeck wrote:

"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU.

How does that number change if the ethanol is made from something with a
higher sugar content than corn, like maybe milo or sugar beets?

-Dan

Dan Youngquist wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jay Honeck wrote:

"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU.

How does that number change if the ethanol is made from something with a
higher sugar content than corn, like maybe milo or sugar beets?

Don't ask on penalty of being dragged naked through the streets by
an angry mob of corn farmers.

And especially, don't ask if there is anything that could just be
squeezed to produce diesel fuel with minimal processing and a better
return on energy.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Eeyore" wrote:

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

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some
one
who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is
that
CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no
?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature
numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed.

No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only
you had the time.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at temperature,
when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant growth. Hey, they
say,
the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2. Err.... right. What did they
expect ?

That CO2 levels and temperature are inextricably linked. What did you expect?

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Eeyore wrote in
:



altheim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
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.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please
some one who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC
case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global
warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their
case, no ?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is
fundamentally flawed.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at
temperature, when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant
growth. Hey, they say, the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2.
Err.... right. What did they expect ?



Oh brother, netkkkop finds yet another way to embarrass hisself.


Bertie















Graham