 | DrumBeat: May 25, 2008 | The Oil Drum | TOD Local Open Thread: What's your town doing about high gas prices? |  |
162 comments on Weekend Energy Listening: Ethanol's Energy Balance with Tad Patzek
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Well, THAT "Objectivity" didn't last long, did it?
Give me an example of misinformation, and cherry picked data.
I think we know that's simply not true.
That's simply Breathtaking!
I notice you've quit talking numbers with me. Why is that?
Give me an example of misinformation, and cherry picked data.
Just one? OK, misinformation: You claimed that Big Oil was behind the lobbying effort to promote food for fuel. When challenged, you could not defend. Another, you accused Tad Patzek of earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for lobbying for Big Oil. Again, misinformation. Shall I go on?
Cherry-picked data? Any time you pick a study paid for by the ethanol lobby over a peer-reviewed study, you have cherry-picked data. And we all know you have done that many times.
I notice you've quit talking numbers with me. Why is that?
What are you, a comedian today? I quit talking numbers because you can't even do dimensional analysis. So, you come up with all sorts of bogus ethanol yields, like 634 gallons/acre. We went down that road, I showed you again and again that your units were all messed up, and you couldn't understand. Here, let me refresh your memory:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3780#comment-323389
Is there anything else comedic you would like to add?
The peer-reviewed data was Searching, et al. Searchinger is not a scientist, mathematician, or even a quasi-expert in the field. He is a Lawyer. Peer-reviewed, or not, the article was a joke. It tried to establish (not with evidence, but with innuendo, and supposition) a connection between ethanol, and the cutting down of rain forests in Brazil. It's ludicrous. For many reasons. You will notice that No One mentions this piece of crap study any more. It was Agenda-Driven Horse Hockey.
There was Not a Single Instance of, even Anecdotal, evidence to sustain such a simple-minded supposition. The head of the Department from which the team was drawn said it, "Was NOT Science.
I, in turn, shortly thereafter, presented two real-world studies, performed to "Scientific Standards" that Observed Real World Vehicles achieving very good gas mileage on mid-level Ethanol Blends. You squawked, and tried to disparage the team of College students performing one of the Tests as biased even though their work was perfectly documented.
In your triumphal link (there's a reason why you linked it, and didn't synopsize it) you questioned why I used "10/6" in my calc. I explained it was easier for me to do in my head than divide by .60. You admitted the accuracy of my result when I showed a link supporting my work. That was your big ex. of my disinformation. You're full of bull. You accepted that I was right.
I'm not the one with a big red nose, and floppy shoes, today.
Searchinger is not a scientist, mathematician, or even a quasi-expert in the field.
What is Bob Dineen, again? I forget. He is an engineer? Or a scientist of some sort? Or aren't you applying those standard consistently? And I forget, was Searchinger the sole author?
tried to disparage the team of College students performing one of the Tests as biased even though their work was perfectly documented
No matter how many times you repeat this, you are still a liar. I pointed out that the study was paid for by the ethanol lobby. That is true. I also said I would wait for independent verification.
You admitted the accuracy of my result when I showed a link supporting my work.
Are you serious? With everything you post, you confirm my lobbyist suspicions. That was not the link in question. That was something entirely different - the amount of weight gain on DDGS. You are either intentionally trying to mislead, or just terribly mistaken.
It is no wonder that someone such as yourself would see ethanol as the solution for your grandkids' futures, when you so dishonestly portray the evidence. Of course when you do that, ethanol looks great. But I can also use your tactics to make ExxonMobil look like Mother Teresa.
If you want to play that game, Searching led a team from Iowa State University which received $22 Millin from Conoco, I believe it was. The project was commissioned by The Nature Conservancy which has Exxon, and Conoco as permanent board members, if memory serves. The Other team was from Princeton, I think, that received$15 million from Exxon.
It doesn't matter; the fact remains that it is absolutely impossible to draw a connection between switchgrass in Florida, or Corn in Iowa, and someone cutting down trees in the rain forest for lumber. And, yes, That IS why they cut down trees. To get Lumber. There are tens of millions of acres of Cerrano land lying fallow, ready to be farmed. No One, Absolutely, No One, would clear trees in the rain forest to plant soybeans. It's ludicrous.
Dineen is the Head of a Trade Group. A Lobbyist. He doesn't pretend to be anything more, or less. He doesn't write hit pieces, and pretend they're "scholarly" research. And, enough with the "peer-review." No one's falling for it, anymore.
We were discussing my "weight-gain" assertion, and when I posted the link you gave it up. The comments were just slightly above the comment you linked. Go look it up.
G'Day :)
If you want to play that game, Searching led a team from Iowa State University which received $22 Millin from Conoco, I believe it was.
You know why I grow tired of conversing with you? You can't even bother to get the most basic facts correct. I tire and tire of correcting you, and then when I do you just repeat some other fallacy. ConocoPhillips gave $22.5 million to ISU for biofuels research.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/apr/biofuels.shtml
But don't ever let little things like facts get in the way of your hysteria. Do you ever fact check any of your accusations?
Dineen is the Head of a Trade Group. A Lobbyist. He doesn't pretend to be anything more, or less.
Yet you have cited him, and yet rejected Searchinger on the basis of qualifications. More of your double-standards.
We were discussing my "weight-gain" assertion, and when I posted the link you gave it up.
You are pathetic. Really. You made an assertion on DDGS and weight gain, and I asked for a link. I never disputed that assertion, and indicated as much. I just asked for a link (although I did note the irony of the age of the link, which was older than one I had just given you - and yet you complained about the age). There was nothing for me to "give up." But if you want to pretend you scored a point somehow - and I would encourage anyone to read through that exchange to see how it actually played out - by all means knock yourself out.
But you have really exhausted my patience. It's just lies upon lies, misrepresentation after misrepresentation. It gets old after a while, and is a huge waste of my time to constantly correct your made up "facts." But of course ethanol looks good to you. You have spun all kinds of myths around it to make it look good. But what you can't handle is the truth.
Incredible!
I stated that Conoco gave Iowa State $22 Million, and you called me a Liar, said I was "Pathetic," and then you posted a link showing
Conoco Gave Iowa State $22.5 Million!!
Just Freak'in Incredible!
You couldn't make this stuff up. :)
I stated that Conoco gave Iowa State $22 Million, and you called me a Liar, said I was "Pathetic," and then you posted a link showing
Do you ever tell the truth? Just when I didn't think you could get any more pathetic, you prove me wrong.
You are pathetic because the money was not for Searchinger, nor for his research. That was your claim - that he was being funded by COP through ISU. That is a lie.
The money from COP was for ISU to do biofuels research, primarily on cellulosic ethanol. Did you not understand that? Really? Or is this some kind of joke where you just see how much of everyone's time you can waste?
Just out of curiosity I searched for Kolliso on the web and found Kum Dollison . This guy is ethanol's version of Dave Matthews (now there is a name from the past). If he does not get paid by the ethanol industry he should send them a bill for all of the posts he makes on their behalf. Looks like he gets just as much of a beating as he gets here; at the Café Hayek http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/09/the-case-for-in.html (uses the name rufus) he is really called to task for no evidence for his ethanol claims. Persistent!
Cool, did you notice that the link you gave was a thread where I was defending the Peak Oil position?
I'm not only prolific, I'm multi-faceted. Prestidigitacious, too. ;)
It's possible to get peak oil right and get the solution totally wrong.
Persistent!
And note that when he is caught in a lie - and there have been many (e.g., his claim that ConocoPhillips funded the Searchinger study) - he doesn't miss a beat. No admission of being wrong, he just trots out another claim. (I only ever recall getting him to admit to being wrong once - when he falsely claimed that ethanol made in any fashion qualified for the blender's credit).
No, No, No! I Never said that.
I said that Conoco gave Iowa State $22 Million. YOU confirmed it.
Persistently Accurate.
Uh, have you already forgotten what you wrote? It's just above, where people can still read it. Most of the time you will at least wait until we are in a new thread before making your false claims. But, just above you wrote:
If you want to play that game, Searching led a team from Iowa State University which received $22 Millin from Conoco, I believe it was.
Did you forget about the bit you wrote where "Searching [sic] led the team" that received the money? I mean, if that wasn't what you intended to convey, why did you write it like that?
I think we all understand quite clearly your game. Anti-ethanol studies are to be linked to Big Oil if possible, and if not possible, just make something up, like the Searchinger/COP link (or, "Big Oil is funding the food versus fuel smear"). It's pathetic and dishonest, but then at least it is consistent with your methods.
Yeah, I was trying to give the impression that Conoco gave those team members checks for $3 something Million, apiece.
You betcha.
Jeez
OH, but you can dump on some College Kids doing a serious fuel cycle test because . . . . . . They study at a University situated in a "State" where some people Raise Corn?
OH, but you can dump on some College Kids doing a serious fuel cycle test because...
Does the lying not even bother you? You have been corrected on this multiple times - once even in this thread - and yet you continue to lie. Why?
But when you have to lie so persistently to make your arguments, there is no denying that you have a vested interest. After all, you may deny it, but you have proven that you lie.