Watch the web for climate change truths

[StageLeft]

the MMGW kool-aid drinkers think it's settled science when it's no where close.

Of course it's not. I believe it's about as settled as submitting a new drug to the FDA because you randomly threw some crap together you found in your garage, gave it to your dog, and it lived a year older than the average dog of its breed and you are selling it as an elixir for longer life. The climate as a whole is certainly one of the more complex areas of study.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose.

Why do you people still continue to spew this BS? Please show the acreage reports that show what you claim? The main shift is usually soybeans-corn - both of which are biofuel crops. forested land being cleared for corn? This is a new one to me. It's an issue in Brazil but here in the US? Where?


But anyway, none of that has much to do with the MMGW theory.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose. The push for "bio-fuels" is part of an effort to go green and find renewable, sustainable sources of fuels.

No it was not.

It's a kick back to the corn farming lobbyists. No one with two brain cells to rub together would ever think that using corn for fuel instead of food would be good for either the environment OR food prices. People were shouting it from their rooftops when the stupid idea was first suggested. Nobody listened of course, and look where we are now.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...2/ap_on_sc/on_thin_ice

"WASHINGTON - The Arctic will remain on thinning ice, and climate warming is expected to begin affecting the Antarctic also, scientists said Friday.

Yep, global warming is all a conspiracy by the godless liberals who want to impact the bottom line of those wonderful corporations who look out for human kind's best interest...:roll:

the web is a good source of information about climate change.

especially if you take the time to look up the authors of some of the
articles, and email with them.

i get the impression from speaking with them that they understate their
case, that things are heating faster than they state publicly. they have
a little of the fear you see in seals when a great white has killed nearby,
though a more intellectual version.

regardless of whether a person believes in the trend towards warming,
which is possible to do since there are some record cold weather in some
places too, the melting of the biggest glaciers and the ice-cap is occurring.
we got a seat on the 50 yard line.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose.

Why do you people still continue to spew this BS? Please show the acreage reports that show what you claim? The main shift is usually soybeans-corn - both of which are biofuel crops. forested land being cleared for corn? This is a new one to me. It's an issue in Brazil but here in the US? Where?


But anyway, none of that has much to do with the MMGW theory.

You can google for more

The gist is US corn subsidies drive expansion in the soy industry in Brazil for example. This then drives rainforest destruction. There's a fairly clear cause (ethanol from corn) and effect (clearing of the rainforest).

It sure does have something to do with MMWG as it's a consequence of the alarmist hype. Scientists say burning fossil fuels is bad, the ethanol lobbyists show corn, green, fuel tank, car, green, happy birds, green... People buy into it, politicians subsidize, corn prices go up, the rainforest goes away.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: silverpig
Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose. The push for "bio-fuels" is part of an effort to go green and find renewable, sustainable sources of fuels.

No it was not.

It's a kick back to the corn farming lobbyists. No one with two brain cells to rub together would ever think that using corn for fuel instead of food would be good for either the environment OR food prices. People were shouting it from their rooftops when the stupid idea was first suggested. Nobody listened of course, and look where we are now.

Unfortunately, when you pull up to the gas pump and see the little green leaves on the pump with the E85, you'll realize just how many people who vote have less than 2 brain cells...

 

[Rainsford]

I refuse to participate in YAGWT (yet another global warming thread) until the participants like ProfJohn actually display some understanding of basic scientific debate.

Still, I think it's worth pointing out that there has never been a point in history when someone selling "Truth" has been anything but a complete tool in it for their own reasons that have nothing to do with getting the facts straight. Poor choice of words in the thread title? Maybe...but I think subconsciously folks like ProfJohn know exactly what they are doing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose.

Why do you people still continue to spew this BS? Please show the acreage reports that show what you claim? The main shift is usually soybeans-corn - both of which are biofuel crops. forested land being cleared for corn? This is a new one to me. It's an issue in Brazil but here in the US? Where?


But anyway, none of that has much to do with the MMGW theory.

You can google for more

The gist is US corn subsidies drive expansion in the soy industry in Brazil for example. This then drives rainforest destruction. There's a fairly clear cause (ethanol from corn) and effect (clearing of the rainforest).

It sure does have something to do with MMWG as it's a consequence of the alarmist hype. Scientists say burning fossil fuels is bad, the ethanol lobbyists show corn, green, fuel tank, car, green, happy birds, green... People buy into it, politicians subsidize, corn prices go up, the rainforest goes away.

Like I stated, I've heard of it being an issue in Brazil but haven't heard of it being an issue here in the US. Also, subsidies are an issue, but not something I argued for or against.

The MMGW statement was more of a statement that suggested chasing down the ethanol claptrap people spew was a bit off the topic of the thread.... but if we must have yet another ethanol thread... then so be it.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose.

Why do you people still continue to spew this BS? Please show the acreage reports that show what you claim? The main shift is usually soybeans-corn - both of which are biofuel crops. forested land being cleared for corn? This is a new one to me. It's an issue in Brazil but here in the US? Where?


But anyway, none of that has much to do with the MMGW theory.

You can google for more

The gist is US corn subsidies drive expansion in the soy industry in Brazil for example. This then drives rainforest destruction. There's a fairly clear cause (ethanol from corn) and effect (clearing of the rainforest).

It sure does have something to do with MMWG as it's a consequence of the alarmist hype. Scientists say burning fossil fuels is bad, the ethanol lobbyists show corn, green, fuel tank, car, green, happy birds, green... People buy into it, politicians subsidize, corn prices go up, the rainforest goes away.

Like I stated, I've heard of it being an issue in Brazil but haven't heard of it being an issue here in the US. Also, subsidies are an issue, but not something I argued for or against.

The MMGW statement was more of a statement that suggested chasing down the ethanol claptrap people spew was a bit off the topic of the thread.... but if we must have yet another ethanol thread... then so be it.

Okay so it's a bit off topic, but I was answering a question of what I thought were the problems of trying to fight climate change because of MMGW. One of the things people are trying to do is to use ethanol in their cars instead of gasoline and I was showing how a knee-jerk reaction like this is bad. And despite what the environmentalists are saying, a LOT of people out there believe putting ethanol in your car helps the environment.

Anyways, we'll all be burning a lot more fossil fuels and ethanol alike in the next few decades when the earth gets colder

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose.

Why do you people still continue to spew this BS? Please show the acreage reports that show what you claim? The main shift is usually soybeans-corn - both of which are biofuel crops. forested land being cleared for corn? This is a new one to me. It's an issue in Brazil but here in the US? Where?


But anyway, none of that has much to do with the MMGW theory.

You can google for more

The gist is US corn subsidies drive expansion in the soy industry in Brazil for example. This then drives rainforest destruction. There's a fairly clear cause (ethanol from corn) and effect (clearing of the rainforest).

It sure does have something to do with MMWG as it's a consequence of the alarmist hype. Scientists say burning fossil fuels is bad, the ethanol lobbyists show corn, green, fuel tank, car, green, happy birds, green... People buy into it, politicians subsidize, corn prices go up, the rainforest goes away.

Like I stated, I've heard of it being an issue in Brazil but haven't heard of it being an issue here in the US. Also, subsidies are an issue, but not something I argued for or against.

The MMGW statement was more of a statement that suggested chasing down the ethanol claptrap people spew was a bit off the topic of the thread.... but if we must have yet another ethanol thread... then so be it.

Okay so it's a bit off topic, but I was answering a question of what I thought were the problems of trying to fight climate change because of MMGW. One of the things people are trying to do is to use ethanol in their cars instead of gasoline and I was showing how a knee-jerk reaction like this is bad. And despite what the environmentalists are saying, a LOT of people out there believe putting ethanol in your car helps the environment.

Anyways, we'll all be burning a lot more fossil fuels and ethanol alike in the next few decades when the earth gets colder

And I understand that but it dosen't mean the arguments you used against ethanol are correct.
From what I've seen, people driving ethanol aren't saying it's a cure - it's more about depenance on oil...but they do use the "green" thing a bit too much for my taste.
I support ethanol and use E85 because it makes economical sense(cost per mile) in my minivan and it's made locally.
:shrug:

 

[Enig101]

One of the best ways to counter this global warming issue would be to halt deforestation of our rain forests, not cut them down for this morally gray biofuel nonsense. There are plenty of other reasons to stop deforestation anyway.

CycloWizard said it best, on the first page:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

"Oh noes!!! the data doesn't fit our model!! Quick change the model!!!"

That's how modeling works. If your model doesn't fit the data, then you adjust the model until it agrees with the data. What would you rather them do - change the data to fit their model? :roll:

Now that you've demonstrated your ignorance beyond any reasonable doubt, kindly leave science to the scientists and we will leave the knuckle dragging to knuckle draggers like you. You have no idea about the scientific merit of any of these theories and just believe whatever your political overlords tell you to believe. I'm sick of every idiot on the internet who has read an op-ed piece thinking that they understand the complexities of climate science. No one understands all of the complexities of climate science, which is why people still study it. If you think that we should have a comprehensive, completely accurate model that tells us everything about the planet's weather patterns, then you are absolutely clueless about anything science related.

 

[palehorse]

Any of you who claim that it has already been proven that man has had anything at all to do with accelerated GW are totally and completely FOS.

That said, there's nothing wrong with living clean, "going green," or encouraging big industry to do the same... within reason.

Just please, send Al Douchebag Gore an email, and tell the idiot to drop the guilt trip... once that stops, we can all drive our hybrids off into the sunset together...

deal?

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Any of you who claim that it has already been proven that man has had anything at all to do with accelerated GW are totally and completely FOS.

That said, there's nothing wrong with living clean, "going green," or encouraging big industry to do the same... within reason.

Just please, send Al Douchebag Gore an email, and tell the idiot to drop the guilt trip... once that stops, we can all drive our hybrids off into the sunset together...

deal?

This is really why I quoted Cyclo's post. The point is we can't really prove that man has anything to do with it. If you are waiting for proof you will be disappointed. That is not how science works. This doesn't mean that scientists cannot piece together data and have a pretty good picture of what is going on.

Scientists are not trying to guilt anyone. I can understand how that would annoy people, but that is political spin. That is not the point. The point is that there is a real problem we are facing, and more likely than not it is going to come to pass. The possible outcomes are severe enough that I think that it is "reasonable" (to use your word) to be cautious, and act as quickly as is feasible to minimize any possible impact we have.

I don't know, that just seems like the sensible course of action from my point of view. But I am someone who respects the scientific community's opinion (being a science student myself) so that is my bias.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Enig101
One of the best ways to counter this global warming issue would be to halt deforestation of our rain forests, not cut them down for this morally gray biofuel nonsense. There are plenty of other reasons to stop deforestation anyway.

CycloWizard said it best, on the first page:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

"Oh noes!!! the data doesn't fit our model!! Quick change the model!!!"

That's how modeling works. If your model doesn't fit the data, then you adjust the model until it agrees with the data. What would you rather them do - change the data to fit their model? :roll:

Now that you've demonstrated your ignorance beyond any reasonable doubt, kindly leave science to the scientists and we will leave the knuckle dragging to knuckle draggers like you. You have no idea about the scientific merit of any of these theories and just believe whatever your political overlords tell you to believe. I'm sick of every idiot on the internet who has read an op-ed piece thinking that they understand the complexities of climate science. No one understands all of the complexities of climate science, which is why people still study it. If you think that we should have a comprehensive, completely accurate model that tells us everything about the planet's weather patterns, then you are absolutely clueless about anything science related.

Let's use the good old fallback: Gravity.

Hmm, the Newtonian model of gravity didn't seem to quite explain everything. So what do we do? Change the way gravity works in the Universe? Or change the model? I think it makes more sense to change the model. Relativity was factored in. Still not enough. The models still don't quite work. And we've got this funky "Pioneer Effect" going on - certain spacecraft are experiencing odd, but slight, accelerations with respect to the sun. So we hypothesize things like "dark matter," some mysterious "something" that we can't see, but if we stick it into the equations that are used to model the way things interact via gravity, suddenly the model seems to mimic reality.
The data doesn't fit our model!! Quick change the model!!! - damn right. Models are by their nature imperfect. If it perfectly replicates the behavior of something else, then it's not a model. It's a duplicate. If the model doesn't match reality, you tweak the model until the error goes away. You don't tweak reality until it matches the model.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Nice straw man...

The debate is not about resources and pollution. The debate is whether we spend billions of dollars to combat something that might not actually exist.

For the record:
going green = great
spending money to fund alternative energy = great
reducing our use of fossil fuels = great

spending billions of dollars chasing 'mandates' so we can feel good about ourselves = bad

Get over yourself, PJ There's no question about whether global warming is real, except in the fridged vacuum between your ears, and there's no question that human beings are the major cause of it. If we don't mandate action, now, by the time the majority of idiots who either are so uninformed that they don't know it's coming, and the majority of self-centered idiots who deny that it's happening will have forestalled action until it's too late to do anything to save our planet.

Unless you've got another one all prep'd and ready to handle the entire population of the planet AND the means to get everyone there, continuing to spew your bullshit makes you a menace to humanity.

:roll: Climate change is real - that is all that is known. MMGW has NOT been shown to be real. Some are saying the warming has stopped and that we're on a cooling trend for the next decade or more. But you folks keep spewing your MMGW religion and we will continue to point and laugh at your willing ignorance.

Ugh, but the paper that said that stated the underlying mechanics of CO2 causing global warming have not changed. It's amazing how you can accuse people of willing ignorance after ignoring that fact.

It's like if you put new insulation in your house for winter, but don't notice it getting any warmer because you left the AC on somewhere. As soon as you turn it off (as they say the ocean current business is only temporary) your extra insulation is still there. I don't know why I'm even explaining this to you and Pro-Jo though. You put ideology before science.

But you ignore the fact that none of that proves MMGW. Did man cause the current "pause"? If so - how?

The only ones putting ideology before science are the MMGW zealots. I am waiting for the science - the MMGW kool-aid drinkers think it's settled science when it's no where close.

You are quoting data from a study but selectively picking what parts of their conclusion you want to believe. Your question to me shows me that you don't understand the basic principles behind the debate as Rainsford mentioned.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Nice straw man...

The debate is not about resources and pollution. The debate is whether we spend billions of dollars to combat something that might not actually exist.

For the record:
going green = great
spending money to fund alternative energy = great
reducing our use of fossil fuels = great

spending billions of dollars chasing 'mandates' so we can feel good about ourselves = bad

Get over yourself, PJ There's no question about whether global warming is real, except in the fridged vacuum between your ears, and there's no question that human beings are the major cause of it. If we don't mandate action, now, by the time the majority of idiots who either are so uninformed that they don't know it's coming, and the majority of self-centered idiots who deny that it's happening will have forestalled action until it's too late to do anything to save our planet.

Unless you've got another one all prep'd and ready to handle the entire population of the planet AND the means to get everyone there, continuing to spew your bullshit makes you a menace to humanity.

:roll: Climate change is real - that is all that is known. MMGW has NOT been shown to be real. Some are saying the warming has stopped and that we're on a cooling trend for the next decade or more. But you folks keep spewing your MMGW religion and we will continue to point and laugh at your willing ignorance.

Ugh, but the paper that said that stated the underlying mechanics of CO2 causing global warming have not changed. It's amazing how you can accuse people of willing ignorance after ignoring that fact.

It's like if you put new insulation in your house for winter, but don't notice it getting any warmer because you left the AC on somewhere. As soon as you turn it off (as they say the ocean current business is only temporary) your extra insulation is still there. I don't know why I'm even explaining this to you and Pro-Jo though. You put ideology before science.

But you ignore the fact that none of that proves MMGW. Did man cause the current "pause"? If so - how?

The only ones putting ideology before science are the MMGW zealots. I am waiting for the science - the MMGW kool-aid drinkers think it's settled science when it's no where close.

You are quoting data from a study but selectively picking what parts of their conclusion you want to believe. Your question to me shows me that you don't understand the basic principles behind the debate as Rainsford mentioned.

Uh, I could care less what rainsford mentioned, I was responding to Hareveybot. I also was not quoting data - I stated a conclusion of the study - which doesn't jive with what Harveybot and the rest of the religion of MMGW zealots keep trying to claim... that it is "settled science". It's FAR from that. It's good to see you MMGW religious folks haven't come up with a consistent spin line to explain away the supposed "pause". Keep trying...I'm sure you'll come up with something to use instead of the current deflections...

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: silverpig

Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose.

Why do you people still continue to spew this BS? Please show the acreage reports that show what you claim? The main shift is usually soybeans-corn - both of which are biofuel crops. forested land being cleared for corn? This is a new one to me. It's an issue in Brazil but here in the US? Where?


But anyway, none of that has much to do with the MMGW theory.

You can google for more

The gist is US corn subsidies drive expansion in the soy industry in Brazil for example. This then drives rainforest destruction. There's a fairly clear cause (ethanol from corn) and effect (clearing of the rainforest).

It sure does have something to do with MMWG as it's a consequence of the alarmist hype. Scientists say burning fossil fuels is bad, the ethanol lobbyists show corn, green, fuel tank, car, green, happy birds, green... People buy into it, politicians subsidize, corn prices go up, the rainforest goes away.

Like I stated, I've heard of it being an issue in Brazil but haven't heard of it being an issue here in the US. Also, subsidies are an issue, but not something I argued for or against.

The MMGW statement was more of a statement that suggested chasing down the ethanol claptrap people spew was a bit off the topic of the thread.... but if we must have yet another ethanol thread... then so be it.

You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

Where did I state I didn't care about deforestation in Brazil? ....that's right.... I didn't. You are on quite a troll roll today...

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

Where did I state I didn't care about deforestation in Brazil? ....that's right.... I didn't. You are on quite a troll roll today...

You were talking about it being an issue in Brazil but not an issue here. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't give a damn about the effects our economic policies have outside the US

 

[ericlp]

Careful Prof.Fool, or I'll have to start posting some "REAL" science.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

Where did I state I didn't care about deforestation in Brazil? ....that's right.... I didn't. You are on quite a troll roll today...

You were talking about it being an issue in Brazil but not an issue here. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't give a damn about the effects our economic policies have outside the US

No, I was asking where in the US was land being deforested due to ethanol. But since you bring it up, it is not our economic policies that are deforesting Brazil. Their own renewable mandate did that and now their desire to export is continuing it no matter what our policy is.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

Where did I state I didn't care about deforestation in Brazil? ....that's right.... I didn't. You are on quite a troll roll today...

You were talking about it being an issue in Brazil but not an issue here. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't give a damn about the effects our economic policies have outside the US

No, I was asking where in the US was land being deforested due to ethanol. But since you bring it up, it is not our economic policies that are deforesting Brazil. Their own renewable mandate did that and now their desire to export is continuing it no matter what our policy is.

According to silverpig, our ethanol mandate is causing corn to displace soy, which is displacing forest in Brazil. There's only a limited amount of arable land on earth, and put some into fuel tanks in one place, it has to be made up for somewhere.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

Where did I state I didn't care about deforestation in Brazil? ....that's right.... I didn't. You are on quite a troll roll today...

You were talking about it being an issue in Brazil but not an issue here. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't give a damn about the effects our economic policies have outside the US

No, I was asking where in the US was land being deforested due to ethanol. But since you bring it up, it is not our economic policies that are deforesting Brazil. Their own renewable mandate did that and now their desire to export is continuing it no matter what our policy is.

According to silverpig, our ethanol mandate is causing corn to displace soy, which is displacing forest in Brazil. There's only a limited amount of arable land on earth, and put some into fuel tanks in one place, it has to be made up for somewhere.

And he has not shown crop displacement to be true - which was one of the points I asked he show proof of. Soy and corn constantly swap acres around here in the midwest - ethanol did not change that. It's always been about what the farmer thinks they can make the most money on that year.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

Where did I state I didn't care about deforestation in Brazil? ....that's right.... I didn't. You are on quite a troll roll today...

You were talking about it being an issue in Brazil but not an issue here. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't give a damn about the effects our economic policies have outside the US

No, I was asking where in the US was land being deforested due to ethanol. But since you bring it up, it is not our economic policies that are deforesting Brazil. Their own renewable mandate did that and now their desire to export is continuing it no matter what our policy is.

According to silverpig, our ethanol mandate is causing corn to displace soy, which is displacing forest in Brazil. There's only a limited amount of arable land on earth, and put some into fuel tanks in one place, it has to be made up for somewhere.

And he has not shown crop displacement to be true - which was one of the points I asked he show proof of. Soy and corn constantly swap acres around here in the midwest - ethanol did not change that. It's always been about what the farmer thinks they can make the most money on that year.

Why would displacement not happen? They normally change what they grow based on food market demand. Now there is artificial demand for ethanol, which is significantly different in that it is not a food. So it's basically throwing food away. Of course that lost food supply has to be made up elsewhere.

This is why I was against ethanol from the start of the political push. "Grow fuel in the midwest instead of buying from the middle east" sounds good to voters, but you can't just pull land out of your ass.

It's depressing that now it's only republican senators (including McCain) calling for a freeze in the mandate, while democrats are afraid of losing those valuable midwest votes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You don't care at all about deforestation in Brazil caused by a bubbleheaded ethanol mandate and subsidies? Did you not care when the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues either?

Where did I state I didn't care about deforestation in Brazil? ....that's right.... I didn't. You are on quite a troll roll today...

You were talking about it being an issue in Brazil but not an issue here. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't give a damn about the effects our economic policies have outside the US

No, I was asking where in the US was land being deforested due to ethanol. But since you bring it up, it is not our economic policies that are deforesting Brazil. Their own renewable mandate did that and now their desire to export is continuing it no matter what our policy is.

According to silverpig, our ethanol mandate is causing corn to displace soy, which is displacing forest in Brazil. There's only a limited amount of arable land on earth, and put some into fuel tanks in one place, it has to be made up for somewhere.

And he has not shown crop displacement to be true - which was one of the points I asked he show proof of. Soy and corn constantly swap acres around here in the midwest - ethanol did not change that. It's always been about what the farmer thinks they can make the most money on that year.

Why would displacement not happen? They normally change what they grow based on food market demand. Now there is artificial demand for ethanol, which is significantly different in that it is not a food. So it's basically throwing food away. Of course that lost food supply has to be made up elsewhere.

This is why I was against ethanol from the start of the political push. "Grow fuel in the midwest instead of buying from the middle east" sounds good to voters, but you can't just pull land out of your ass.

It's depressing that now it's only republican senators (including McCain) calling for a freeze in the mandate, while democrats are afraid of losing those valuable midwest votes.

Have you looked at yields? Have you looked at how many bushels are used for ethanol? I would say not.
Yields have continually increased(more bushels per acre) and our corn SURPLUS has increased year to year. Also, a byproduct of corn ethanol is DDG which can and is fed to livestock.
So no, it is not "basically throwing food away". How many threads do we have to have to go over these same points?.... and why do they die when I ask people to look at acreage and yeild reports? sheesh.