On May 15, 7:13 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:


Bull ****ing ****. Let's just look at ethanol. It takes more energy to
produce ethanol than it itself produces,

According to *one* scientist (Plimenthal) who published a paper on it
back in 2001.

Simply because Rush Limbaugh repeats something over, and over, and
over- that doesn't make it true. And it certainly doesn't make it
scientific.

Here's a link to an index of items addressing the amount of energy
contained in a gallon of ethanol vs. the amount of energy it takes to
produce one.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

You'll find a variety of US government agencies (all working under the
direction of a Republican president) represented. Because some of the
calculations examine different methods of farming and different
varieties of corn there are different net results- but to me that
*adds* to the believability because if there were indeed a conspiracy
the results would be more uniform.

Furthermore, the Plimenthol/Limbaugh camp and its apologists always
seem to assume that petroleum oil will be burned when growing,
harvesting, and processing corn or other crops into ethanol. If you
burn ethanol in the farm vehicles, etc, the amount of petroleum used
to create a gallon of ethanol drops to a very small amount.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:38:59 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:40:33 -0000, thunder
wrote:

My theory is, there are scientists who have
spent there entire careers studying climate. If they can't be sure, I
figure neither can I, even with the help of Google. ;-)

Carefull - you might be considered a "denier" thus hostile to the Church
of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod.

Not a denier, but I am somewhat skeptical. Besides, with 1/2 the world's
oil supplies already burned, I don't think we have enough left to make a
difference in the world's climate.

On May 16, 7:07 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In oglegroups.com, Chuck
Gould sprach forth the following:





On May 15, 7:13 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

Bull ****ing ****. Let's just look at ethanol. It takes more energy to
produce ethanol than it itself produces,

According to *one* scientist (Plimenthal) who published a paper on it
back in 2001.

Simply because Rush Limbaugh repeats something over, and over, and
over- that doesn't make it true. And it certainly doesn't make it
scientific.

Here's a link to an index of items addressing the amount of energy
contained in a gallon of ethanol vs. the amount of energy it takes to
produce one.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

You'll find a variety of US government agencies (all working under the
direction of a Republican president) represented. Because some of the
calculations examine different methods of farming and different
varieties of corn there are different net results- but to me that
*adds* to the believability because if there were indeed a conspiracy
the results would be more uniform.

Furthermore, the Plimenthol/Limbaugh camp and its apologists always
seem to assume that petroleum oil will be burned when growing,
harvesting, and processing corn or other crops into ethanol. If you
burn ethanol in the farm vehicles, etc, the amount of petroleum used
to create a gallon of ethanol drops to a very small amount.

Moron, can you READ? I didn't write PETROLEUM, I wrote ENERGY. Go back to
writing your sycophantic reviews of your advertisers' products, chimp.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And if you would stop calling names long enough to do some reading,
you will see that the links in the index all refer to *energy*, not
petroleum. I apologize for including more than one concept in a post.
Apparently that confounded you pretty badly.

On May 16, 7:06 am, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:38:59 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:40:33 -0000, thunder
wrote:

My theory is, there are scientists who have
spent there entire careers studying climate. If they can't be sure, I
figure neither can I, even with the help of Google. ;-)

Carefull - you might be considered a "denier" thus hostile to the Church
of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod.

Not a denier, but I am somewhat skeptical. Besides, with 1/2 the world's
oil supplies already burned, I don't think we have enough left to make a
difference in the world's climate.

I don't think there is any question in my mind. They do not want to
lose control of the worlds energy markets, weather oil, grain,
hydrogen, Al Gores carbon scamits, etc. But as much as I am snickered
by the recent spikes in oil, I have most of my life enjoyed pretty
reasonable energy costs. I wonder out loud that if "Big Energy/Corp"
maintained control, and stayed in front of the curve, if they would
not go back to making a good living, without killing us, as they have
done over the last half century. Also wonder who else has the money,
resources, and motivation to do and finance the r+d on alternative
fuels/energy. Shall we have someone Like Hillary "take that money from
the big oil companies and give it to folks who will put it toward r+d
for alternative fuels". (HC in a recent speech). Quite frankly, in
this instance I favor the capitalist over the socialist, I think big
energy will lead the way to the next generation of products. And as I
noted above, it's not just big oil, Dow is in partnership too, and
they do know a little abut r+d.

On May 16, 7:07 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In oglegroups.com, Chuck
Gould sprach forth the following:

you are sure a rude sob .aren't you ? why have to talk like this? are you really think with your "intellect" .. it is ok to downtalk ... this site should be for boaters , not some tripping ape as you seems like to be..



On May 15, 7:13 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

Bull ****ing ****. Let's just look at ethanol. It takes more energy to
produce ethanol than it itself produces,

According to *one* scientist (Plimenthal) who published a paper on it
back in 2001.

Simply because Rush Limbaugh repeats something over, and over, and
over- that doesn't make it true. And it certainly doesn't make it
scientific.

Here's a link to an index of items addressing the amount of energy
contained in a gallon of ethanol vs. the amount of energy it takes to
produce one.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

You'll find a variety of US government agencies (all working under the
direction of a Republican president) represented. Because some of the
calculations examine different methods of farming and different
varieties of corn there are different net results- but to me that
*adds* to the believability because if there were indeed a conspiracy
the results would be more uniform.

Furthermore, the Plimenthol/Limbaugh camp and its apologists always
seem to assume that petroleum oil will be burned when growing,
harvesting, and processing corn or other crops into ethanol. If you
burn ethanol in the farm vehicles, etc, the amount of petroleum used
to create a gallon of ethanol drops to a very small amount.

Moron, can you READ? I didn't write PETROLEUM, I wrote ENERGY. Go back to
writing your sycophantic reviews of your advertisers' products, chimp.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:04:22 -0400,
wrote:

On 14 May 2007 20:50:12 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote nothing of interest:


I guess this really ****es you off, huh?
http://tinyurl.com/2226bt

Gene, you know that I have a great deal of respect for your skills,
knowledge and experience in any number of areas.

This just makes the point I tried to make the other day.

It's become political fodder for hack politicians.

It's not about science, it's about scoring points on the opposition.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:01:48 +0200, Dan wrote:

wrote:
Don't tell these people that, they would be very disappointed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png
--
Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
eMail

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide

What would you call it?

So why _don't_ you want.

Forget speakers, microphone arrays, etc. It's real acoustic
music on stations all over AirAmerica, and it makes the meat at
high temperature heat source. I have three times as many cd's
as he was in line with those newsgroups, Deco.

Man, I"d love to know what random text generator you are using.

Some of these are really clever.

In an insane, psychotic kind of way.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:01:48 +0200, Dan wrote:

wrote:
Don't tell these people that, they would be very disappointed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png
--
Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
eMail

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
What would you call it?

So why _don't_ you want.

Forget speakers, microphone arrays, etc. It's real acoustic
music on stations all over AirAmerica, and it makes the meat at
high temperature heat source. I have three times as many cd's
as he was in line with those newsgroups, Deco.

Man, I"d love to know what random text generator you are using.

Some of these are really clever.

In an insane, psychotic kind of way.


It certainly is higher class than Dan's usual curse-filled posts here.

"HK" wrote in message
...

It certainly is higher class than Dan's usual curse-filled posts here.

I wonder if his wife caught him acting up & threatened to take away his
privilidges?

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
It certainly is higher class than Dan's usual curse-filled posts here.

I wonder if his wife caught him acting up & threatened to take away his
privilidges?




A Mrs. Dan? You think?