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.