Here we go folks - E-15 fuel

[Tomtall]

In the never ending quest for the Government to improve our daily lives the E-15 fuel has arrived! Ok. So maybe we will be blessed with getting E-20 after they do their trail tests of how well the E-15 fuel behaved. Hmmmmmm wonder how that report will read? Just ask a corn farmer that is getting his kick back from the Government. :mad:

Read the whole discusting story at ----

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/10/epa-to-allow-15-ethanol-in-gasoline-up-from-10-now-/1

[Mark75H]

Good thing its only recommended for the few cars sold in the past 4 years. How many stations are going to dedicate a pump for just those few customers? We may eventually get out of this mess ... as soon as people wake up and figure out regulating CO2 emissions means no soda and no beer. CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a "greenhouse gas" of major concern

[ricochet112]

xxxxxxxxxxx

[Mark75H]

No, poor argument and not logical. You took my comment out of context and changed the meaning.

That story omits the main greenhouse gas and its proportional relationship to the three it wants to blame which are actually minor players.

[ricochet112]

[oooooooooooooo.

[Mark75H]

"Concern"

Ground storage? Who thinks most of the water is on land? I think they learn the truth about that in elementary school. Maybe someone meant surface, not ground.

If water vapor's part is not well understood and it is the major greenhouse gas ... what does that say about the rest of the "science"?

[ricochet112]

.............................

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

Fact:

It is true the Earth is getting warmer by a very small amount over the last 50 or so years, based on past average temperatures over a much longer period of time. This is assuming that you can learn anything conclusive when these type records have only been being kept for the last 200 years or so, and the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old. (except if you are a bible thumper, then it's only 2000 or so years old)

Fact:

It is true that this has happened a number of times in the overall history of our planet. (millions of years) Climate change is cyclical, just as almost everything else that has happened to our planet since it came into being. We have had all kinds of catastrophic events over the millennia, including asteroid strikes (remember the dinosaurs?) floods, ice ages, etc., etc.

Fact:

In all those previous times of catastrophe, Al Gore and his minions were not around to spread the word, put us all in a panic, and extract money from us, all in the name of global warming or whatever. Since he he also invented the internet, he not only invented the catastrophe, but the way to let us all know about it also. Isn't he special!!

Fact:

The time passed since the present warming trend was first noticed and documented, and the total number of times this has happened have absolutely NO correlation with each other from the standpoint of proving, without a large chance of error, that what man has done in the last 200 years, is responsible for this temperature change.

Fact:

Within the last 30 years, some of the same scientists who are now claiming "the sky is falling, and we are going to ruin the planet if we don't change our ways", are now claiming the exact opposite in the way of catastrophe, that we are going to burn up, instead of freeze to death. This is a complete 100% reversal of what is going to happen to the earths climate and temperature over the last 30 years, from people who are supposedly smarter than the rest of us??

Fact: BILLIONS (thats a lot folks) of dollars have already been appropriated and spent by our government (thats you folks) to do something about what a goodly number of our other smartest scientists say is "junk science".

OBSERVATION:

I have now been around long enough to be snowed by lots of government flacks and folks with their hands out in the name of "we want to save you from yourself". I don't think I want to be saved anymore. It costs too much, with very little return, at least from my experience to this point.

CONCLUSION:

I think they are full of crap, and only want more of my money to further their own liberal agenda. They can go take a flying leap up my "you know what". If a 100 years down the road I am proved wrong, I will just blame it on them for all the other scams they have pulled since I have been paying their way with my hard earned bucks. Cynical, you bet, but they have nobody to blame it on but themselves.

[Mark75H]

I'll clarify ... CO2 is a greenhouse gas of little concern compared to water vapor (that's where you changed the context of what I said, you left out "concern"), the main greenhouse gas ... and water vapor is well beyond our ability to control or even minimally affect, as you point out.

We are pulling out of an unusually long and deep solar minimum. Actually pretty well out of it; I've been watching the stats almost daily here for 4 or 5 years: www.spaceweather.com

Its really hard to say if there is continuing significant warming or not, many of the observation points have changed in nature and that affects the report from them. What caused the significant warm period before the mini-ice age that ended just a little over 100 years ago? It certainly wasn't our campfires or goat flatulence (we didn't have many cows yet).

Things certainly are warmer now than 150 years ago. We may never know why nor how long it will last.

[ricochet112]

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

Independent thinking and the ability to make informed judgement's, without believing the sky is falling all the time and perpetrating a fraud on the American public to gain an end, based on incomplete information and in some cases outright fraud and lies.

The older I get the less use I have for those that know it all and try to tell others how to live and what to do, based on "junk science", massive self interest (money and grants) and a false belief that government and do-gooders can solve all the world problems. Profit motive has solved more world problems and fed more people than the other side with all the publicity they get, EVER will.

All you have to do is look at the folks on both sides of this issue, and as Looper One says, "Follow the Money".

Anyone who tells me that they can forecast on a short term basis from records only kept for the last couple hundred years, what is going to happen to the earths weather long term, and whose fault it is, needs to read some more books, primarily on independent thinking and deductive reasoning. In addition, it is a matter of record that some of the information used to reach these decisions, is false, and was known to be at the time it was put out to justify current and future appropriations for their use. In that type situation, I have no use either for them or their conclusions.

As to Rush Limbaugh, he is an entertainer, nothing more or less, and has no more or less a grasp of good ideas than those on the other side. They both lie and falsify information to suit their own purposes and agendas.

End of story.

[bandit]

people wake up and figure out regulating CO2 emissions means no soda and no beer.
That's the best explanation i've heard to date.
As Bill said the planet is warming at the rate so small my grand kids will have thier extra taxes paid before thet have to worry.
The taxes i meant were health care and cap&trade.

[ricochet112]

llllllllllllllllllllllllll

[Master Oil Racing Team]

Sorry, but your info is not correct. There is no CO2 in gasoline, and gasoline weighs around 6.25 pounds per gallon around 65 degrees F. You are referring of course to calculations of how much CO2 is produced in the burning of one gallon of gasoline. I am not sure I buy that though. According to that chart the average car produces 7700 kg per year in CO2. I drive more than average and get less fuel milage than average so the calculator says I put out 32 tons of CO2 per year. When we were busy, my average would be around 40 tons or more according to the calculator. To me that does just not compute. My average number of pounds of just the liquid gasoline I use per year is only a little over ten thousand pounds, 3333 gallons, or one third of a transport load of fuel. I do not see any way that translates to 64,000 pounds of CO2.

Consider that there are around 143 million vehicles operating in the United States.....only the U.S.. Just using the averages alone that amounts to over 24 billion pounds of CO2 PER YEAR, AND JUST THE U.S.! I have found that working with federal and state agencies, and in particular a 5 year term on the Nueces River Authority, I have heard countless statistics put out in confidence and when it gets to the nitty gritty and you ask why the results don't come out according to the predictions you will find every single time that the models don't work and they don't know why. I can tell you why. There are just way too many variables that come into play and the variables themselves are not static. They are constantly changing as well. That's why when you see a hurricane coming, there are over a half dozen projected paths. There are a lot more models, all with different paths, but they just show the most used.

You can burn and measure components of gasoline and atmosphere all day every day in a lab, but in the real world it is different. And data can be interpreted in many different ways according to how one wants the results to come out.

[Mark75H]

Clouds are not water vapor ... they are very fine droplets of liquid water ... not part of the "greenhouse" effect of water vapor


As far as following the money ... locally the owner of 2 reactors said this week that they would not build a third because they need the profits from trading cap and trade garbage in order to make enough money for their share holders ... they have nothing to do with oil production or use, but they WANT IT (cap and trade) BAD. Now they want out of the reactor so bad they are selling the project to their French partner for $1

It makes no sense for nuclear power producers to want cap and trade ... the system is that corrupt, that they do, because they will make money off of it.

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

If I were going to try to convince someone of something that there is so much doubt, confusion, misinformation, etc., about, I would try to do better than the sources you have most recently quoted and referred us to.

Wikipedia is widely known as a source that anyone can put about anything up they want, whether true or not. For that reason I have a hard time giving that source much credibility.
That is the source of two of your references.

The third source identifies themselves as "green". I have a hard time with credibility from that type source also.

The last source is NASA, who are in a hard way now and in the recent past insofar as funding for the various projects they want to go into the future with. Since their funds come directly from the same folks that are controlling the funding for various other studies that all come to the conclusion that we are doomed if we don't change our ways, please forgive me if I look upon all these sources/study's with a somewhat suspicious eye.

When you are able to source UNBIASED studies, by organizations who have taken no money from either side, and have no axe to grind in either direction, then perhaps those studies will have some credibility with me and others who feel the same way as I. By the way, don't waste any more time on my account.

Before you blame others for not being as concerned as you think we should be, or overlooking what seems to you to be obvious, look first at the ways in which this information has been put before the public. If there is plenty of confusion, and in some cases outright disbelief about all the stuff the "doomsayers" have been preaching the last couple of years, you and they have no one to blame by yourselves by the sleezy methods used to try to convince the citizens of this country of something that, at best, is highly unlikely to be caused in any great degree by HUMAN actions.

If this really is a crisis of the magnitude you and others are trying to warn us about (which I doubt) then a great portion of the fault that we did not believe you will be yours and your kind, by the way you have gone about it. Since most of you always think you are right all the time, no matter the facts and opinions in opposition, (look up the WIKI definition of arrogance) that probably will just go right by you as you blame everyone else for whatever does happen. If everyone but the folks that think the way you do are the "bad guys" anyway, and stupid besides, why should we care?

[bandit]

As Bill said to much misinformation!!
republican talking points nothing more...if you follow the money on the deniers side...it points to big oil...hmmm

one 1 liter of pop has about 5 grams of co2, about 18.5 grams per gallon

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_CO2_is_inside_a_bottle_of_Coke

one gallon of gas has about 18 lbs of co2

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_CO2_do_cars_release

the amount of gallons of gas used in a day vs the gallons of pop drank in day is the only stat i couldn't find, i would bet gasoline use is about a 40 to 1 ratio vs pop and beer combined

an interesting calculator

http://www.afteroilev.com/emissions.php


A new paper released.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

It has been understood since the 19th century that some gases absorb infrared radiation (IR) that is emitted by the planet, slowing the rate at which the planet can cool and warming the surface. These so-called greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide and water vapor, as well as ozone and methane among others. Note, however, that the bulk of the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen and oxygen molecules which don't absorb IR at all. Less well appreciated is that clouds (made of ice particles and/or liquid water droplets) also absorb infrared radiation and contribute to the greenhouse effect, too. Clouds, of course, also interfere with incoming sunlight, reflecting it back out to space, making their net effect one of cooling, but their contribution to the greenhouse effect is important.

[Master Oil Racing Team]

Woah Bill Van. :) You ran on him pretty hard. I have found that most people that watch network TV don't get all the facts right. I went to the links to see what he referred to, and I do have a problem with the sources. And you are right Bill Van, with the fact that anyone can post misinformation on a website that purportes to be the truth. If you cannot get your facts straight when you try to make a point....how can anyone follow where you are headed?

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

Wayne:

Three reasons for my direct and "hard" criticism of his posts regards this subject:

1. I have seen numerous posts by this same person regards the "sky is falling" about this and other subjects dear to the liberal heart on this site and another. Tell the lie often enough, and it becomes truth. You, I am sure, based on your background, are aware of that, and all the politics that can be involved in environmental issues. YOU more than most. I just have had a bellyfull of this subject by folks quoting sources that are very suspect, based on suspect motive, wanting to be in the forefront of the latest "green" issue, and other reasons, and I think it is time that all intelligent folks take a deep breath and really think this scam through.

2. He has no trouble in the past calling others out who disagree with him about this or other subjects and environmental issues.. Its past time to be on the other end. We are not a bunch of sheep out here.

3. What he and others are selling in a very "hard" and direct way is going to cost us all dearly, and the "sale" is based on a lot of very suspicious and possibly purposeful/fraudulent information presented as "fact". If you are part of the group that for whatever reason, ignorance, having been mislead, need the latest "green" issue to feel important, or just like to yell fire in a crowded theater, or even if you are genuinely concerned about this issue, at least try not to insult others intelligence with your arguments based on the type information and references you give to try to prove your point.

If you or others think I am over reacting, perhaps it is time more do. If something is not done this is going to cost us all a lot of money and freedom of activity. I wish we had an "NRA" for this issue. I think it is that important. Maybe if more criticism was directed to those who promote this issue as "truth" with no chance of error or mistake, we would all be more knowledgeable about the subject. The way it has been presented to to this point, with untruths and deception by those supposedly "expert" on the matter, is a disgrace.

[Master Oil Racing Team]

I rarely go to other sites Bill Van so I was not aware of other posts, but I can see where you are coming from. I was an "environmentalist" in college back in 1969. I subscribed to one of the very first magazines dealing with the subject called "Environmental". It dealt with issues of pollution. Water, air, land, etc. But it was a straightforward magazine and even had an article about how one company, following directives issued by the government, got screwed big time by a separate agency for doing what another arm of the government told them to do. The environmental movement got highjacked by the communists because it is a easy way to force rules upon us. The vast majority of the public has no clue to the science involved and so it is easy to fool them and scare them into heading down a path that will cost dearly not only in money, but freedom.

Take for instance the CAFE reforms congress forced on auto manufacturers. That was one of the primary reasons for the problems in the industry. That and the unions. Now they are going to try to force tin can toy electric cars on us. When it goes too far, those of us in the oilfield will not be able to go to the field to work. We have to have vehicles with guts and stamina to get to and from location. A toy pickup won't do it.

I have seen a lot of abuses in and from the environmental movement, and it is chock full of lies. The Cap and Trade is a farce that could be the final blow to the sovereignty of America. Finally, some of the lies are being exposed. I just hope it's not too late. If more scientists had the guts to stand up it would help, but too many live off of government grants. I would hope more would have enough integrity to expose the liars, but you know how that goes. As Paul says..."Follow the money".

[Original Looper 1]

Both political sides have been economically screwing the majority of the US citizens for far too long. Look at our debt and deficits relative to our almost totally economically destroyed productive middle class.

One side’s done it with corrupt regulation. The other side’s contributed with corrupt de-regulation. Did I mention that the rich get richer during wars or peace?

Profit, at times, is a good motivator and provider of living standards. As long as it doesn’t become exclusively the motivator in the higher degrees of commerce. Monopolies sometime destroy just as much as no incentive whatsoever.

The measurement of success needs to include everyone that has taken a responsible part in the process. The measurement of failure needs to illustrate the degree of responsibility, appropriately and fairly, to encourage accountability.

We, politically, need more people to serve our greater good as a society without hidden agendas of greed and self advancement or a too highly flawed intellectual ideology, ie too impractical for reality.

When my family left Illinois back in the early 80’s, I thought the Democrats could keep that corrupt state with it’s massive (useless) bureaucracy and tax burdens. I wondered who would be responsible enough to turn off the lights as the last productive business/company was leaving the state. I never dreamed, years later, that it could become even worse. The few visits I’ve made back to Illinois since have illustrated to me that you should never underestimate the potential (corruption) of people in politics. When we first moved to Florida, taxes were low and insurance was cheep it too then was run by Democrats, which were being quickly replaced by the northeastern Republican establishment. Throw in the Bush family and their cronies, and you can imagine the outcome.

I read recently a comment by someone that stuck in my brain. The choice of electing Democrats vs. Republicans these days has become a choice of whether you want to die by drowning vs. die by hanging. Some choice.

Somewhat over 40 years ago, the United States air force pilots were knocking Communist Migs out of the sky in Viet Nam. Some 40 plus years later, China has come from object poverty to having the ability to economically destroy our country without firing a shot. They can educate or produce almost anything our country can for practically 10 cents on the dollar. What could we ever teach our children in schools to overcome such a horrendous disadvantage? I am speaking globally, economically.

Our country’s borders to the north and south have been practically open since the 60’s. It’s especially alarming that they have been open since 9/11, while we’re supposedly fighting a war on terror(ism). Maybe, as far as the powers that be are concerned, the mission IS truly accomplished.

As always, follow the money. It speaks more about the truth of the matter than the hot air the corrupt politicians and the corporate media feed us ….. that shamefully contributes unnecessarily to global warming.

Regards,

Paul

[ricochet112]

Wayne:

Three reasons for my direct and "hard" criticism of his posts regards this subject:

1. I have seen numerous posts by this same person regards the "sky is falling" about this and other subjects dear to the liberal heart on this site and another. Tell the lie often enough, and it becomes truth. You, I am sure, based on your background, are aware of that, and all the politics that can be involved in environmental issues. YOU more than most. I just have had a bellyfull of this subject by folks quoting sources that are very suspect, based on suspect motive, wanting to be in the forefront of the latest "green" issue, and other reasons, and I think it is time that all intelligent folks take a deep breath and really think this scam through.

2. He has no trouble in the past calling others out who disagree with him about this or other subjects and environmental issues.. Its past time to be on the other end. We are not a bunch of sheep out here.

3. What he and others are selling in a very "hard" and direct way is going to cost us all dearly, and the "sale" is based on a lot of very suspicious and possibly purposeful/fraudulent information presented as "fact". If you are part of the group that for whatever reason, ignorance, having been mislead, need the latest "green" issue to feel important, or just like to yell fire in a crowded theater, or even if you are genuinely concerned about this issue, at least try not to insult others intelligence with your arguments based on the type information and references you give to try to prove your point.

If you or others think I am over reacting, perhaps it is time more do. If something is not done this is going to cost us all a lot of money and freedom of activity. I wish we had an "NRA" for this issue. I think it is that important. Maybe if more criticism was directed to those who promote this issue as "truth" with no chance of error or mistake, we would all be more knowledgeable about the subject. The way it has been presented to to this point, with untruths and deception by those supposedly "expert" on the matter, is a disgrace.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

For comments regards the subject of global warming made by Ricochet112 over the last several years on another site regards that subject and liberal/conservative issues and bias towards either, you may use the following links and then draw your own conclusions. There are some who don't like what I have to say sometimes, and that's what makes the world we live in interesting, but I DON'T LIE WHEN I POST SOMETHING.

If anyone is further interested you may read his postings on various issues of the same type in this thread and draw your own conclusions. If anyone tries the links and is unsuccessful, I have printed copy's I would be glad to scan and e-mail to any interested party.

I really don't care what his opinion is, other than as I have stated, what is going on now in the way of information being disseminated to the public is corrupted by too much money being involved if certain conclusions are reached that are favorable to the folks dolling out the money.

What I do care about is being called a liar, and that I don't know what I am talking about when I make a statement of fact about his bias on this issue. Make your own decisions based on the available information. The rest of his childish rant and name calling reminds me of a three year old that can't have his way.

http://www.hydroracer.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20040 (titled: truth out)

http://www.hydroracer.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12908 (titled: more snow)

http://www.hydroracer.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14872 (titled:winters here)

http://www.hydroracer.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13432 (titled: its time for change)

[Original Looper 1]

800 Reasons to Question Global Warming
newsnet5.com
updated 10/18/2010 10:46:46 PM ET 2010-10-19T02:46:46

"The science is settled!" That's the slogan used by the pro-Global Warming crowd. but is it really?

Below is a list of 800 papers by respected and awarded scientists that question or contradict the Man-Made Global Warming Theory (AGW). The science is NOT settled... This list was compiled by Andrew over at PopularTechnology.net. This is worth sifting through!

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

- Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

"The corrected estimates are very similar to the original results, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ... While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values"

- Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
- Craig Loehle

A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
- Robert C. Balling Jr.

A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate
(New Zealand Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp. 30-32, 1994)
- C.R. de Freitas

A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
- Heinz Hug

A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden

Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
- Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
(Energy Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773–2784, April 2009)
- Robert H. Essenhigh

Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation
(Nature, Volume 258, Number 5537, pp. 697-698, December 1975)
- Gerald L. Potter, Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Michael C. MacCracken, Frederick M. Luther

Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an example from eastern Colorado, USA (PDF)


*******************

These articles are written by CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS. Obviously, MOST everyone here does not agree with the Al Gore - Goldman Sachs - Maurice Strong global crowd that is trying to sell you carbon trading and global taxes as a way to "fix" the environment HERE.

Who is Maurice Strong? This billionaire, originally from Canada but living in China for many years, works for the United Nations AND for the Rockefeller and Rothschild’s Trusts. He was also a main factor in a 1995 UN report called “Our Global Neighborhood” that contained a number of ominous and scary proposals - including the establishment of a global tax, UN control over “global commons" (ie that's most of us), expansion of the powers of the World Bank MONOPOLY, expansion of the jurisdiction of the International Court, removal of U.S. veto power in the Security Council and creation of THEIR Economic Security Council to oversee the world’s economy.

Just innocent and "Convenient" connections between global warming, the United Nations and big time billionaires? Never, ever forget -- what the richest people call a consensus, many times the poorer people call a conspiracy. In my opinion, rightfully so.

You can see all of the links to the 800 scientific papers and articles mentioned above at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39732691/ns/local_news-cleveland_oh/

As always, follow the money. It will help lead you to the truth and reality.

Regards,

Paul

[ricochet112]

Bill you are a lair, everything you say from here on out is pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. You are making up shyt and putting false words in my mouth.

[Master Oil Racing Team]

I have to agree with Bill Van that global warming is a farce. If it had been warming since the ice age, then there would be overwhelming and inconclusive evidence to support that. In the ten thousand or so years since whatever the last ice age was, a continual warming would have turned us into crispy critters long ago. Instead the earth warms and cools in cycles. Increased sunspot activity and eruptions on the sun's surface coincide with warmer temperatures on earth and volcanic eruptions of massive proportions bring on cooling and lots of rain and snow. In the late 1800's there were 100 foot snow drifts in Russia. There were also massive drifts in the western plains of the U.S. Not long ago scientists found lots of fossils of big palm trees and other tropical forest plant life on Greenland beneath the snow and ice. There have been big dramatic shifts in our climate long before cars and factories existed. The point that snow comes from water that has evaporated is not any type of proof that global warming is upon us. When the midwest was under a mile sheath of ice, it was snowing then, and I hardly consider that global warming.

More and more scientists are getting the guts to speak out about the hoax since the fabrication of data has come to light. One of the factors that was beginning to bring global warming to the forefront about when Al Gore's film was coming out,was a ten year running average of the average global temperature. There was an abberant temperature spike in 1997 that led some people to believe it was beginning had it not been for the equally big shift to cooling in 1998. (I may have the years wrong, but what the junk scientists did is true.) The ten year average should have been 1998 to 2008, but they included 1997 and left out 1998 to skew the data. The other years were all within the range of normal average yearly fluctuations. You could cherry pick the abnormal 1997 year to stack the data toward warming, then produce a model that added the increased temperature for several decades and make it look like disaster looming on the horizon. The data that came out of the English professor was based on one single event and event from a long time ago and even that info is suspect.

Just like lawyers, there are some dumb lazy scientists who either have an agenda or aren't smart enough to make a good career in the private sector so they depend on government grants, or handouts from taxpayers via our Washington D.C. congressional members. They might get $250,000 to study why tadpoles don't have sex, or $150,000 to study why hydroelectric cars are not feasible, or $100,000 to figure whether it would be best to have red eared humpbacked tortoise trails run underneath interstate highways in a north/south direction, or east/west. A lot of the crap that is added to legislation in the form of pork goes to scientists who can laugh all the way to the bank knowing whenever they start to run out of money they can concoct another scheme to bilk us out of more. Trouble is, the global warming/CO2 scam could cost us our country as we know it. If it were really a threat, then why are China, India, Brazil, and most other countries not being pushed to limit greenhouse gases. It's all because WE have the money and WE are where the traders are going to get way beyond filthy rich off of our stupidity.

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

Richochet112:

What YOU "actually"said can be accessed by using the links I provided in a previous post on this thread.

What I "actually" said can be accessed by reading carefully what I have posted on this thread. Evidently you have not done that as there are many errors in your comments regarding my posts.

If you did NOT post what appears under your name in the links I furnished, who did?

You can call me all the names you want to your hearts content. That will not and does not change what YOU have posted on this subject and others. Doesn't make you good, bad, or indifferent, just ON THE RECORD. If you have seen any error in your way, or now wish to change your mind regards stated positions, you are welcome to do that also, but calling me names and a liar does not change anything you wrote. None of those changes if you make them, will change what you originally posted, and what you originally posted is my point.

This is my last comment on this thread. I believe my point has been made very clearly, and will be confirmed by anyone wishing to read your posts and comments. You can deny those posts all you want, but that does not change them, and calling me a liar will not either, as they are there for anyone interested to see. If you are as upset about them now as it would seem, by denying their existence when anyone can reference them, that says much more about you than me.

[bandit]

Except to drink as racing fuel!!
But does any one no what the alternative is?
I live in Mo. , and it's a hell of a tax suplement to us in this state.
I am waiting for what replaces it that is harmless and doesn't have an effect on ground water and the unborn.
As much as i hate it it's the lesser of the evils, kinda like voting .
I guess we could always ask wayne since he's in the bidness as we say in Mo.

[Tomtall]

Ok - So after much debate over global warming I would like to discuss some more about my original post. (thanks for sharing your input guys on global warming it was entertaining). :)

Like was earlier stated you only have to follow the $ if you want to find the real drive behind this whole matter of watered down corn fuel. I would like those interested to take the time to read the following article and then share your thoughts on what is said about the pros and cons of it. Please take into account who wrote the article.

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/02/ethanol_too_much_hypeand_corn.html

[Master Oil Racing Team]

Frankly Tom, I was a little confused. From what I understood the Pro person was against ethanol, and the Con person was for it. They both make the case however, that the only way ethanol was going to be produced was if it were heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. None of the other problems tied to ethanol as a fuel was brought up, such as collecting water, especially in marine fuel tanks, not being as fuel efficient as gasoline, or other damage that could result in even higher formulations. If a plant wants to make ethanol for fuel use, fine....do it on you own dime. You can bet that if Hillary runs for president the Clinton's Tyson friend, the chicken farmer, will dig deep into his pockets for campaign cash.;) I did mention the much higher costs not only to feed livestock, but also the direct increase in food costs for consumers. Corn is in a lot of products, and corn meal is a staple in most of the poor countries. That alone should be enough to shut down this stupid move to increase ethanol use.

Who's to say the increase in production isn't to get the volumes up to the point where they don't notice the Chicago mob siphoning off the extra for a little better bootleg profits?;):D