Comments on: Corn-Based Ethanol a Case Study in Law of Unintended Consequences

By: Breakfast Links | Points and Figures

Breakfast Links | Points and Figures — Thu, 26 May 2011 11:10:46 +0000

[...] to bear the yoke of Romneycare (a total fail in Mass), then T-Paw needs to pull the weight of his ethanol mandate in Minnesota. He did call for an end to subsidies [...]

By: KI M DIONSON ORION

KI M DIONSON ORION — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:22:24 +0000

I WANT TO FINISH MY STUDY CAN YOU HELP ME.IT’S FINANCIAL PROBLEM.PLZZZZZZZZZZ

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:09:42 +0000

Rob N. Hood: Maybe you should check the statistics on how much taxes oil copanies pay for all the profits they receive. They pay billions not to mention the hundreds of thousands of employees they hire. Besides share holders determine CEO pay not the gov’t, nor should they. Someone a long time ago took a huge risk to start an oil company and they should be compensated for their hard work. Their are companies such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds etc…. that have double digit profit margins every year but nobody ever goes after the evil empire of McDonalds? [actually, they do - editor] The fact is we are a class society and people will always envy the rich for what they have achieved and want to punish them because it is not fair. I know because I used to be a Liberal… I mean Democrat. Then I became informed. They have a saying when you are young and dumb you vote Democrat and when you age and become educated you vote Republican.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:48:34 +0000

When you say global-warming propronents are making buskets of money- I think you have drunk some kool-aid yourself. Where is your proof of these great riches you speak of….? However, it is very clear that the oil industry that is making barrels, not buckets, of money… and chumps out of us. I am not a scientist, nor do I spend lots of time trying to find data to support my views. And you even admit, a study or reaserch can be “made” to say whatever you want it to. It all depends on who funds it, or who the researcher actually works for. So here we are in a sad state of affairs where it is difficult to believe anything. Now comes the tin-hat part: I do beleive that over the past 20 years there has been a concerted effort to crank out more and more “research” and studies to purposefully cloud many issues- why? …. so the elite stay rich and we stay ignorant and at each others throats. It’s working out pretty damn good for “them” I’d say. Not so much for me, or even you probably. What can we do about it? I really don’t know. I don’t really trust anyone anymore. And I think that’s a bad thing for America, and the world.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:34:47 +0000

Rob N: No we don’t want an echo chamber. But when you echo the environmentalist, and anti-oil talking points, that’s where you sound like you are coming from. In the interest of common ground, I’m glad to hear that you believe ethanol is a scam. We agree 100% there. So there is hope for you.
I became very skeptical of global warming when I first heard someone say that the debate is over. I then started to look into it and found that the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based on computer models. I then started to look into the accuracy of computer modeling of climate systems. And guess what?.. You can make a computer model do whatever you want it to do. Also, it is impossible to accurately model the climate for the simple fact that nobody knows what all the factors are.
Now I’d like to offer you some evidence that one of the greatest proponents for global warming is making buckets of money off of it.
http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2008/06/al-gore-generation-investment.html There is more information out there, you just have to look for it. I’d also like you to read the following comments from the Weather Channel’s founder John Coleman. http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
And if you are still not convinced, I’d like you to look here http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3 to see what some scientists in Canada have to say about global warming.
If you have anything you would like me to look at, to try to convince me of your point of view, please post them and I will be happy to look at them.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:05:32 +0000

So you guys just want an echo chamber here is that it? I think the jury is still out on global warming, to claim either way is presumptuous. I believe that Ethonol is a scam. I am yet to be convinced that global warming is a money making scam.

By: Sick N. Tired

Sick N. Tired — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:33:09 +0000

Ethanol is one of the biggest scams of all, and it’s crippling our economy to make a few big ag companies richer. I will never vote McCain, even if he picked Palin – He’s turned her into one of “them” in a matter of weeks. I’ll never vote for McPlenty, either. He’s changed his tune a tiny bit on global warming, but he’s still a fraud.

I’m sick of being scammed, and I refuse to be a part of the fleecing of America!

By: KuhnKat

KuhnKat — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:35:03 +0000

Rob N. Hood,

you do not appear overly concerned that the gubmint is spending billions on researching a fraud and trying to implement fascist policies based on this fraud.

You a part of this conspiracy??

Most of the glaciers in California are GROWING!! I am 56 and grew up in the San Joaquin valley. Southern California is a DESERT!!! The southern valley is naturally very arid. Your quoted research simply confirmed what history has shown us about the long term California climate.

Now, do you support the ethanol subsidies? Especially since ethanol is WORSE for the environment, even by your standards, than using oil??

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:47:32 +0000

Rob N, Do you know what junk science is? A tell is when they say could, might, or may. I don’t believe everything I read, even if it agrees with my beliefs. I like to confirm things. I was a true believer in global warming 20 years ago. But through research and follow up, I discovered that the global warming theory is full of holes.
As far as the study you mentioned in your post, this is the summary at the end of this. http://www.werc.usgs.gov/sngc/forest_demography.htm

What are the implications for global warming?

Declines in tree death rate with elevation are independent of changes in stand structure and composition and appear to be related to biotic (insects and pathogens) and unknown (most likely biotic) factors. Death rate declines may be driven by (1) reduced insect and pathogen activity with declining temperature at higher elevations, or (2) decreased length/severity of summer drought stress at higher elevations, hence lower susceptibility of trees to biotic causes of death. If these findings hold in other forest types and regions, they suggest a potential tree death rate increase in the face of global warming.

It seems to me that they are making too many assumptions and guesses to be science. But if you want to believe that this is proof of global warming, you go right ahead. But don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:52:02 +0000

Does Rob N. Hood have an opinion on ethanol? I think Rob has this site confused with the Daily Kos, cause I can go there to get anti-capitalist, and evil big oil screed. Hmm….

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:39:38 +0000

Speaking of trees (you brought them up, I didn’t):

VISALIA, Calif. – Federal researchers are warning that warming temperatures could soon cause California’s giant sequoia trees to die off more quickly unless forest managers plan with an eye toward climate change and the impact of a longer, harsher wildfire season.

Hot, dry weather over the last two decades already has contributed to the deaths of an unusual number of old-growth pine and fir trees growing in Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, according to recent research from the U.S. Geological Survey.

In the next decade, climate change also could start interfering with the giant sequoias’ ability to sprout new seedlings, said Nathan Stephenson, one of several scientists speaking Thursday at a government agency symposium on how global warming could affect the Sierra Nevada.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:38:47 +0000

Am I? Woof!

By: Dan McGrath

Dan McGrath — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:19:10 +0000

You’re barking up the wrong tree.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:49:50 +0000

The “Moral Majority” Republicans and the â€œsupply-sideâ€ neocons always represented two of the worst and most vile impulses in the American character â€” mass, willful ignorance and total, shameless greed. In one wing of the ruling-party mansion they housed preachers who transformed the religion of “turn the other cheek” and “go, give away all your possessions to the poor” into a “Christianity” that celebrated shock-and-awe bombing and assault-rifle ownership and decried the progressive income tax as unfair to the propertied class. In the other wing they housed “conservatives” who turned the party of “limited” government into a giant snooping apparatus, one that “borrowed” (spent) trillions against the future earnings of ordinary taxpayers and sacrificed thousands of lives to snatch a few Middle Eastern oil wells for companies that were rich as hell to begin with.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:41:44 +0000

While many Americans struggle to fill their gas tanks, big U.S. oil companies are making so much money that they literally don’t know what to do with it.

Instead of reinvesting more of their newfound wealth to increase supplies or develop emerging technologies that might one day reduce energy costs, they are giving much of the loot to shareholders already enjoying outsized gains.

In a capital-intensive business, giving cash back to shareholders is often the equivalent of throwing in the towel. It’s saying “we can’t do anything with this money to improve our business.”

And it certainly doesn’t address the oil crunch that consumers pay for every day at the pump.

Is that what oil giants pay executives exorbitant salaries to do? Especially in a sector where better long-term vision and reserve development 10 years ago might have helped avoid the current mess?

I don’t think so. But that’s what’s happening.