New ethanol study, 21 April 2014

I don't even believe Global Warming exists.

For the last 15 years it hasn't. That is the problem. This is why the experts at the University of East Anglia were scrambling to "hide the decline". When their attempt to jimmy the numbers failed, they switched to "climate change".

For the last 15 years it hasn't. That is the problem. This is why the experts at the University of East Anglia were scrambling to "hide the decline". When their attempt to jimmy the numbers failed, they switched to "climate change".

The only change these people really want although often hidden is to change to our way of life.

I don't know about climate change but................Both polar ice caps are melting at alarming rates, Greenland is losing it's glaciers so fast that it may indeed become "green". Ocean levels ARE rising. Arctic seaways are becoming navigable in the winter months. Ocean temperatures are warmer. But I don't know about "global warming".

The real question is whether it is manmade or natural and what if anything can be done about it. Sticking our heads in the sand accomplishes nothing.

I don't even believe Global Warming exists.

Apparently Al Gore does. His net worth is 300 million. Not bad huh.....

I don't know about climate change but................Both polar ice caps are melting at alarming rates, Greenland is losing it's glaciers so fast that it may indeed become "green". Ocean levels ARE rising. Arctic seaways are becoming navigable in the winter months. Ocean temperatures are warmer. But I don't know about "global warming".

The real question is whether it is manmade or natural and what if anything can be done about it. Sticking our heads in the sand accomplishes nothing.

About 1000 years or so ago Greenland WAS green with viable agriculture and settlements. Then came CLIMATE CHANGE. And yet there still are both people and polar bears. Of course there is climate change. Always has been. Always will be. Big ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, hot periods, deserts come and go, seas rise, seas turn into mountains, and things turn to dust. Puny and arrogant man can only adapt. Throwing trillions of dollars at Nature hoping to bend Her to our will is only going to enrich the greedy and devious who sense an opportunity to profit..........Bob

About 1000 years or so ago Greenland WAS green with viable agriculture and settlements. Then came CLIMATE CHANGE. And yet there still are both people and polar bears. Of course there is climate change. Always has been. Always will be. Big ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, hot periods, deserts come and go, seas rise, seas turn into mountains, and things turn to dust. Puny and arrogant man can only adapt. Throwing trillions of dollars at Nature hoping to bend Her to our will is only going to enrich the greedy and devious who sense an opportunity to profit..........Bob

Ask a environmentalist what point in time would he/she like us to live in. There is no way on earth you can hold the environment in a steady state.

Gee I would like it to be the time a great sea existed from the Mississippi delta all the way to the Hudson Bay. Just think of all the new surfing spots.

I don't know about climate change but................Both polar ice caps are melting at alarming rates, Greenland is losing it's glaciers so fast that it may indeed become "green". Ocean levels ARE rising. Arctic seaways are becoming navigable in the winter months. Ocean temperatures are warmer. But I don't know about "global warming".

The real question is whether it is manmade or natural and what if anything can be done about it. Sticking our heads in the sand accomplishes nothing.

I find this fascinating. Do you not remember last winter, just a few months ago? Remember how cold it was, 5 to 10 degrees below normal for the time of year? Remember how the weather experts blamed it on "Polar Vortex"? Remember the weather maps showing icy blasts 1000 miles wide blowing down from the arctic circle at the speed of an express train?

How could that be possible if the polar regions were above freezing and the ice caps all melted?

I am afraid your information is woefully out of date. The ice caps are not melting, they have largely frozen over again.

PS For extra, do you remember last winter when an ice breaker had to be sent out on an emergency mission to rescue a ship load of "global warming" enthusiasts, who almost got frozen in the ice for the winter? They were SURE there was no danger of a freeze up because the South Pole was melting so fast? Turns out that was all bullshit too.

About 1000 years or so ago Greenland WAS green with viable agriculture and settlements. Then came CLIMATE CHANGE. And yet there still are both people and polar bears. Of course there is climate change. Always has been. Always will be. Big ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, hot periods, deserts come and go, seas rise, seas turn into mountains, and things turn to dust. Puny and arrogant man can only adapt. Throwing trillions of dollars at Nature hoping to bend Her to our will is only going to enrich the greedy and devious who sense an opportunity to profit..........Bob

Nailed it.

Apparently Al Gore does. His net worth is 300 million. Not bad huh.....

Well...the guy did invent the internet.

I just read in the Providence Journal that one of our Democratic governor candidates calls for "Green Bank" to help lessen the impact of climate change. Meanwhile, all our roads are in a bad state of disrepair, I dread driving any of my cars this summer. Most haven't been repaved since the 50's.

I heard a wise preacher one time who said: { quote } " We have learned more and more about less and less until we've learned all there is to know about nothing" { end quote }. The world we live in today is an insane asylum with the inmates running it.

To all you greedy, "livin' the good life" carbon producers;:mad:

The Democrat candidate's call for a "Green Bank" sounds suspiciously like a call for a carbon tax! We have to admire the genius of politicians: invent a problem, then tax the people to fight said problem.

Don't send your money to the politicians, send it to me! The politicians will only hire relatives as consultants and more relatives to construct hopelessly expensive infrastructure:eek:, whereas I'll use the money to save old cars from the crusher. By the way, I'm self-certified worldwide to collect any and all carbon tax monies:cool:. Since you have a computer, you're guilty of having a huge carbon footprint, so to assuage your feelings of guilt, send me money (in any currency). Trust me, you'll feel better.

Certified trustworthy,

Grog

To all you greedy, "livin' the good life" carbon producers;:mad:

The Democrat candidate's call for a "Green Bank" sounds suspiciously like a call for a carbon tax! We have to admire the genius of politicians: invent a problem, then tax the people to fight said problem.

Don't send your money to the politicians, send it to me! The politicians will only hire relatives as consultants and more relatives to construct hopelessly expensive infrastructure:eek:, whereas I'll use the money to save old cars from the crusher. By the way, I'm self-certified worldwide to collect any and all carbon tax monies:cool:. Since you have a computer, you're guilty of having a huge carbon footprint, so to assuage your feelings of guilt, send me money (in any currency). Trust me, you'll feel better.

Certified trustworthy,

Grog

If you're a little short right now send whatever money you can spare to me, BHIGDOG, and I will issue "GROG Credits" at twice the value of the bucks you send me. You can resell them at an inflated price to those who are locked out of the GROG market and need to comply with the recently issued GROG ALERT. Of course the credits issued must be taxed as ordinary income....................Bob

If you're a little short right now send whatever money you can spare to me, BHIGDOG, and I will issue "GROG Credits" at twice the value of the bucks you send me. You can resell them at an inflated price to those who are locked out of the GROG market and need to comply with the recently issued GROG ALERT. Of course the credits issued must be taxed as ordinary income....................Bob

Genius!!! We can do business while establishing trade in carbon credits using bitcoins. We get 'em comin' and goin'.

In awe of BHIGDOG,

Grog

Genius!!! We can do business while establishing trade in carbon credits using bitcoins. We get 'em comin' and goin'.

In awe of BHIGDOG,

Grog

Aw Shucks. Ain't nuthin. I learned it at the knee of Al Gore et. al..............................Bob

Don't listen to those bums. Send your money to me. I promise to spend it all on old cars, gasoline, and whiskey. None of it will be wasted.

Lots of strong opinions, but very little factual stuff to support the Katie Pavlich article. Since she didn't offer any facts either, I looked her up and found this on Wikipedia.

Katie Pavlich (born July 10, 1988)^[1][2] is a Croatian-American conservative journalist, primarily known for her work at the online news-magazine TownHall.com as well as for authoring the book Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up. A National Review Washington Fellow, she's appeared numerous times as a television commentator, notably on the Fox News program

Paul;

What Katie Pavlich article? I must have missed something here, but that's not all that unusual for me. Do you have a link to the article?'

Grog

Grog,

The article was the basis of starting this thread (now I wonder how many actually read it and the related links) and the link was in the first post of this thread. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...oline-n1826957

Oh, yeah the article cited in Post #1 of this thread. Yes, I've read that article and related ones suggested by contributors to this thread; however, not ever having heard of Katie Pavlich before stumbling upon this thread, I just didn't immediately mentally link her name with the cited article.

Paul, I have to disagree with your opinion that "very little factual stuff" has been offered with the "strong opinions" of this thread.

Cheers,

Grog

John,

Also take a look at the third paragraph of my Post #17:

I did take the opportunity to click on the link that you furnished in your second posting and found that it was a 7 year old assessment of a conservative organization (Townhall.com) by a liberal organization (Center for Media and Democracy). I then did as you suggested and did an online (not just limited to Google) search to determine what the "mainstream summaries" were saying about the Nature Climate Change study. Interestingly enough, they (Time Magazine, N.Y. Times, et al) were saying pretty much the same thing as the summary by Townhall.com.

I don't know what more to say, except that you can buy your carbon credits from BHIG, OToole or me. Send money, you'll feel better ... trust me.

Now, what was it the Original Poster said ... ?

Certified trustworthy,

Grog

Bravo Grog! You see, I forget things too! I am glad you are certified trustworthy, thanks for pointing that out.

I do believe I will have to contemplate over this discussion with a mason jar full of corn squeezins at hand. Dandy Dave!

If anyone wants to know one possible reason why young people do not frequent this forum, just have a look at some of the science deniers on here and you have your answer.

If anyone wants to know one possible reason why young people do not frequent this forum, just have a look at some of the science deniers on here and you have your answer.

There are two trains of science on the matter. I believe the science denying has little to do with the young participating on the forum.

I'm kind of waiting for my college-age kids to realize they don't know everything.

I'm kind of waiting for my college-age kids to realize they don't know everything.

LOL. Teenagers, get out now while you still know everything! Dandy Dave!

If anyone wants to know one possible reason why young people do not frequent this forum, just have a look at some of the science deniers on here and you have your answer.

You're about 10 years too late on that conclusion. There used to be some semblance of diversity on this topic here and others that are similar, but it's been driven out. It's not even worth correcting obvious factual errors that threads like this get littered with any more (and this one is no exception).

This is not a scientific discussion, it's just couched as one. It's as much a religious discussion as a political one at this point, one that never ends and resurfaces every 4-6 months just to keep a check on the participants. Usually it is more discreetly posted in the "Legislation" forum. I'm surprised this hasn't been moved.

People will believe what they want to believe on this topic until they die, as is illustrated every time the topic of education is broached (as seen here). At this point it's probably more valuable to observe what groups tolerate which viewpoints expressed. As such watch for this post to vanish soon, if not immediately.

Couple of very interesting articles in Saturday's WSJ re ethanol and also the non renewable dooms day mind set of some environmental true believers. ................Bob

If anyone wants to know one possible reason why young people do not frequent this forum, just have a look at some of the science deniers on here and you have your answer.

Do you mean settled science as in "we know we're right dammit so just shut up.".................Bob

Dave Moon is right, it is not a scientific discussion. It is impossible to have a serious scientific discussion about something that is basically money and politics. The special interest groups such as the corn growers and their bought politicians have dictated our present horrible ethanol policy.

Dave Moon is right, it is not a scientific discussion. It is impossible to have a serious scientific discussion about something that is basically money and politics. The special interest groups such as the corn growers and their bought politicians have dictated our present horrible ethanol policy.

Actually there are special interest groups on all sides of the discussion. There are groups driven purely by profit motive, groups driven by messianic devotion to their causes, groups driven by hybrid motives of making a profit from their beliefs, all complicated by "experts" and "scientists" who are chasing a finite supply of grant and study money and who are quite willing to see a certain side of any argument. Remember the old adage "who's bread I eat his song I must sing."

Bob

Actually there are special interest groups on all sides of the discussion. There are groups driven purely by profit motive, groups driven by messianic devotion to their causes, groups driven by hybrid motives of making a profit from their beliefs, all complicated by "experts" and "scientists" who are chasing a finite supply of grant and study money and who are quite willing to see a certain side of any argument. Remember the old adage "who's bread I eat his song I must sing."

Bob

If I could find the "Like" button, I'd press it (or as we like to say here in the South: I'd "mash" it).

Well, I'll have to admit that I did enjoy my ethanol last night (over ice).

Cheers,

Grog

People will believe what they want to believe on this topic until they die, as is illustrated every time the topic of education is broached (as seen here).

It seems that since you have been preaching Global Warming to us the winters and springs have become colder. It's 3 days before May and the temperature outside is in the 40's. I don't know about the Arctic, but it doesn't seem like it's warming anytime soon here. I'll believe my bones before I believe science!.............

You're about 10 years too late on that conclusion. There used to be some semblance of diversity on this topic here and others that are similar, but it's been driven out. It's not even worth correcting obvious factual errors that threads like this get littered with any more (and this one is no exception).

I did realize there was no real point to trying to present facts and yes, settled science, on the issue. People can have an opinion but their opinion doesn't alter reality. I originally wrote a multi-paragraph post and even cited sources to dispel some of the earlier uninformed and outright wrong statements made on the topic, but then I remembered where I was. I do fully appreciate that spending time on the AACA forum means the opinions here will more than likely reflect an older generation's viewpoints, and I'm sure nobody here will debate that those views almost always vary from the views of the younger crowd. When you were a kid did you believe that the moon was made of cheese just because ol grandpappy said it 'twas so, he heard it from his teacher down at the one-room school house? Heck, she's traveled all over, even been to the next county once, so she really must be an expert on celestial bodies!

Knowledge is gathered exponentially with each generation so it is a fallacy to dismiss those who you may disagree with, but who likely have better or more ready access to the facts. Sure the old dentist has more experience with tooth pullers and mercury fillings, but I'll take the guy who came out of med school 5-years ago and is armed with the latest and safest tools, education and procedures. I enjoy the different opinions offered here, it's why I still come back even tho I have personally seen posts containing slightly masked racism, homophobia or similar things that few my age would find acceptable or funny, but your words do have meaning, and when you post them in a public place you have to expect people to read them, and if you're uninformed or your mind if simply full of outdated ideology then you must expect to be called on it. I'd happily sit down over a cup of coffee with anyone on this forum to chat about cars, I love your combined knowledge on that topic, but once it starts down the long, dark path of cultural or scientific discussions, I think I will pay my bill and part ways with a smile and a handshake.

I did realize there was no real point to trying to present facts and yes, settled science, on the issue. People can have an opinion but their opinion doesn't alter reality. I originally wrote a multi-paragraph post and even cited sources to dispel some of the earlier uninformed and outright wrong statements made on the topic, but then I remembered where I was. I do fully appreciate that spending time on the AACA forum means the opinions here will more than likely reflect an older generation's viewpoints, and I'm sure nobody here will debate that those views almost always vary from the views of the younger crowd. When you were a kid did you believe that the moon was made of cheese just because ol grandpappy said it 'twas so, he heard it from his teacher down at the one-room school house? Heck, she's traveled all over, even been to the next county once, so she really must be an expert on celestial bodies!

Knowledge is gathered exponentially with each generation so it is a fallacy to dismiss those who you may disagree with, but who likely have better or more ready access to the facts. Sure the old dentist has more experience with tooth pullers and mercury fillings, but I'll take the guy who came out of med school 5-years ago and is armed with the latest and safest tools, education and procedures. I enjoy the different opinions offered here, it's why I still come back even tho I have personally seen posts containing slightly masked racism, homophobia or similar things that few my age would find acceptable or funny, but your words do have meaning, and when you post them in a public place you have to expect people to read them, and if you're uninformed or your mind if simply full of outdated ideology then you must expect to be called on it. I'd happily sit down over a cup of coffee with anyone on this forum to chat about cars, I love your combined knowledge on that topic, but once it starts down the long, dark path of cultural or scientific discussions, I think I will pay my bill and part ways with a smile and a handshake.

OK, so if your on board with all this new stuff, then why are you spending time with a 1962 Mercedes and a 1936 GMC and want to hang ( on the forum ) with all us old school village idiots???? Surly you can fill your auto passion by driving a new electric car or better yet just taking public transportation and loosing cars altogether. There is a word for that kind of behavior.

Also, I've got no problem with new types of fuel IF the car is designed to use it. Just don't make me destroy my cars and investments with new stuff that's not designed to be used in it. I think THAT is what this is all about to most people.

People can have an opinion but their opinion doesn't alter reality.

Sure it does, not only their own reality but everyone else's. This country has fought multiple wars over opinions that later proved to be non-factual, and that's a pretty stunning change of reality for everyone involved. This ethanol/Climate Change "opinion" (probably better stated a "truth") is no different.

You're fighting a belief system, and a rather seductive one at that because it ties into feelings of victimization. That's why I characterized these discussions as "religious" in nature.

At some point the major emphasis to be drawn from these discussions is more a reflection of who tolerates these "opinions" in their name than the truths themselves. The collective reality outside this discussion is well known. Woe be to the future credibility of any organization that allows it's image to be tainted by zealous disregard in it's name for what is often derisively called "settled science" here.

The simple use of the term "settled science" marks one as a true believer who will never be swayed by any research contradicting their beliefs. It is laughable to think there is any such thing as settled science.

Science is never "settled". I can't imagine any scientist hearing the phrase "the science is settled" about anything and not laughing. I won't bore you with all the "settled" scientific theories that have been exploded.

When you hear the phrase "the science is settled" you know you are listening to a religious argument, or a political argument, not a scientific one.

OK, so if your on board with all this new stuff, then why are you spending time with a 1962 Mercedes and a 1936 GMC and want to hang ( on the forum ) with all us old school village idiots???? Surly you can fill your auto passion by driving a new electric car or better yet just taking public transportation and loosing cars altogether. There is a word for that kind of behavior.

Also, I've got no problem with new types of fuel IF the car is designed to use it. Just don't make me destroy my cars and investments with new stuff that's not designed to be used in it. I think THAT is what this is all about to most people.

I have the right to drive and enjoy old cars and listen to opinions on this forum that are different than my own even if I don't necessarily like the mindset of a few stubborn people who I feel are incorrect, the two do not correlate in any way, are not mutually exclusive, and does not lessen my joy for the hobby. As with any discussion, this is my opinion, and you have yours, I have no issue with that and defend your right to speak what you feel and would never contrive to attack you personally or try to compare how much of a "car guy" you are by what you drive. Are there not people here who don't even own a classic or vintage car? There are, but by your measure they don't belong here. I choose an all inclusive model for my life, and I am better for it. You're remarks border dangerously on "you aren't one of us, so you don't belong here." I do know plenty of older generation folks who strive to remain up to date on knowledge and info, so again, age isn't the sole factor. To your point however, I consider myself someone who does see the big picture and I would gladly drive a new Tesla or other electric car over most other gas cars, and if you like cars I suggest you try one yourself. You will be amazed at the wave of torque that envelopes you on your way to smooth and quiet highway speeds. I also back the idea being tossed around locally that some of our downtown city streets *should* be closed to cars and remain pedestrian only, if you read up on the number of pedestrian deaths in the parts of our town that have lots of clubs, cafes and restaurants you might consider that useful also. Again, none of this makes me less of an enthusiast. I have owned many old cars, I attend every race that goes on here, I go to the MBCA corral at the local historics, auto jumbles and swap meets, I founded a car new site that has grown to readership approaching 100,000 people, I contribute to Jalopnik regularly, I write for our local and national club magazines and newsletters, I work on my own car when I have the means to do so, and I am going on a road trip in a few days to pick up a fun old car with a buddy. I dare say I am more active in the car world than many who seem to judge me.

I'd like to toss in the notion that Tesla may very well be the entity that brings back traditional coachbuilding. These cars use a skateboard style chassis, a flat base to which the body and components are affixed, this is different than unibody cars we have been straddled with for so long. The ability to swap out the bodywork so readily has many in the car world excited at the prospects of the return of the coachbuilders. You may not know that if you simply disregarded anything written about electric cars. Also, you do realize that electric propulsion for cars is indeed old technology? So I am to believe that now there are only certain electric cars that will qualify my credentials as a car guy. Grog and RW Burgess also expressed similar enthusiasm for electric and hybrid cars on the first page of this thread so I am not alone even here. You will have to send me the rule book on what makes someone a true gearhead, I didn't get my copy when I was born to a father who was working down at the Chrysler plant. I also don't see too many people complaining that Jay Leno owns and appreciates all makes, models, ages and even powered plants in his cars. As you said, there is a word for that kind of behavior.

My use of "settled science" was a turnabout to the individual who used it originally to mean quite the opposite. Maybe that subtlety eluded some, I will be more clear in the future.

Dave@moon, I think we are arguing the same point mostly, so if my attempts at humor were taken as truth or my opinion, again I somehow failed. To be clear, I firmly believe there is a massive change underway on our planet, I can't presume to know if it;s a normal cycle or a man-made one, but I do know it will have catastrophic effects on all of us alive in 20+ years. I am not one for sabre rattling but for a more scientific approach about how we can better manage our food and water resources, our rising sea levels, dwindling sea life, etc. Few could say we have enough resources for everyone on the planet, and the 2-billion extra who will arrive in the next 10-years or so. I think Dave's point is that things ARE happening, regardless of why, and I agree with that.

Also, ethanol is gas is bad.