Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol

[Sallow]

Boy oh boy I am really glad there aren't alot of conservatives involved in science...or technology (There are a few..)

Nothing would ever get done.

Conservatives understand the difference between science and consensus. Al Gore conveniently blurs the two in order to mesmerize his cultist followers.

Sciense to a leftist - "It is because we all concur that it is"

Hardly science.

This makes little sense.

Are you saying peer reviews have no validity?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Boy oh boy I am really glad there aren't alot of conservatives involved in science...or technology (There are a few..)

Nothing would ever get done.

you better explain this mister...

Because in order to do science..or technology..you need cognition..and to be open minded. I like to go back to the Demmings cycle to explain how new technology gets implemented.

Plan - Put together a plan.
Do - Implement the plan.
Check - Check for issues.
Act - Act on the issues.

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.

Part of implementing something new is to expect that it is not going to be perfect. That there may be unintended consequences..and that you may have to make corrections.

See? What'd I tell you? We're smarter than you.

So fucking predictable.. and laughable.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Boy oh boy I am really glad there aren't alot of conservatives involved in science...or technology (There are a few..)

Nothing would ever get done.

Conservatives understand the difference between science and consensus. Al Gore conveniently blurs the two in order to mesmerize his cultist followers.

Sciense to a leftist - "It is because we all concur that it is"

Hardly science.

This makes little sense.

Are you saying peer reviews have no validity?

I'm certain it make little sense... to you.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm 50. My entire life it's either been:

We're gonna burn up nin ten years
We're gonna freeze in ten years
Sea levels are rising and we'll drown in ten years
Sea levels are dropping and we'll die in ten years.

According to the EnviroNazis, we should have been extinct 40 years ago. They're ALWAYS wrong.

 

[daveman]

Boy oh boy I am really glad there aren't alot of conservatives involved in science...or technology (There are a few..)

Nothing would ever get done.

you better explain this mister...

Because in order to do science..or technology..you need cognition..and to be open minded. I like to go back to the Demmings cycle to explain how new technology gets implemented.

Plan - Put together a plan.
Do - Implement the plan.
Check - Check for issues.
Act - Act on the issues.

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.

Part of implementing something new is to expect that it is not going to be perfect. That there may be unintended consequences..and that you may have to make corrections.

So now that ethanol production has been proven to be the cause of a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey, and requires 70% more energy to produce than it yields, we can expect science-loving liberals to recognize its total failure and insist it be stopped?

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath while I watch you spin and twist and weasel your way out of your ridiculous claims.

 

[KissMy]

Boy oh boy I am really glad there aren't alot of conservatives involved in science...or technology (There are a few..)

Nothing would ever get done.

you better explain this mister...

Because in order to do science..or technology..you need cognition..and to be open minded. I like to go back to the Demmings cycle to explain how new technology gets implemented.

Plan - Put together a plan.
Do - Implement the plan.
Check - Check for issues.
Act - Act on the issues.

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.

Part of implementing something new is to expect that it is not going to be perfect. That there may be unintended consequences..and that you may have to make corrections.

There was no science behind Al Gore & the Scientist political plans to begin with. They knew it was bad from the start & lied to implement a plan that they knew would fail.

Even worse is now instead of checking the scientific facts they stuck their finger into the political wind & changed their plans accordingly.

Never mind the fact that the No-Till Farming Community, Genetics & Broin's new enzymes have advanced & combined to now make corn ethanol a very viable positive energy product many years later. Once again instead of acting on the science or facts these lying assholes do an about face & now say it is bad & back some other unproven nonsense.

 

[Sallow]

you better explain this mister...

Because in order to do science..or technology..you need cognition..and to be open minded. I like to go back to the Demmings cycle to explain how new technology gets implemented.

Plan - Put together a plan.
Do - Implement the plan.
Check - Check for issues.
Act - Act on the issues.

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.

Part of implementing something new is to expect that it is not going to be perfect. That there may be unintended consequences..and that you may have to make corrections.

So now that ethanol production has been proven to be the cause of a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey, and requires 70% more energy to produce than it yields, we can expect science-loving liberals to recognize its total failure and insist it be stopped?

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath while I watch you spin and twist and weasel your way out of your ridiculous claims.

This..

Proves my point entirely.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

When are all people gonna wake up and realize that the Global Warming Cult is all about World Socialism? It's a Left Wing fanatic movement. There is very little real science involved. People just need to become more informed. It really is that simple.

 

[daveman]

Because in order to do science..or technology..you need cognition..and to be open minded. I like to go back to the Demmings cycle to explain how new technology gets implemented.

Plan - Put together a plan.
Do - Implement the plan.
Check - Check for issues.
Act - Act on the issues.

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.

Part of implementing something new is to expect that it is not going to be perfect. That there may be unintended consequences..and that you may have to make corrections.

So now that ethanol production has been proven to be the cause of a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey, and requires 70% more energy to produce than it yields, we can expect science-loving liberals to recognize its total failure and insist it be stopped?

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath while I watch you spin and twist and weasel your way out of your ridiculous claims.

This..

Proves my point entirely.

Really? Then you can point me to liberals calling for the end of ethanol subsidies like me, a science-hating conservative is doing?

 

[Sallow]

And exactly how did this cult melt the polar caps?

 

[Sallow]

So now that ethanol production has been proven to be the cause of a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey, and requires 70% more energy to produce than it yields, we can expect science-loving liberals to recognize its total failure and insist it be stopped?

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath while I watch you spin and twist and weasel your way out of your ridiculous claims.

This..

Proves my point entirely.

Really? Then you can point me to liberals calling for the end of ethanol subsidies like me, a science-hating conservative is doing?

This is not about "science", it's about winning your point.

Using words like "weasel" and "spin" is really not conducive to discourse..is it?

 

[8537]

Any politician who supports corn ethanol isn't doing it for the science or the "energy". S/he's doing it for the votes. If the first caucus was in Florida we'd be subsidizing and running our cars on orange juice.

It's embarrassing how much Americans have been led on this scam like an obedient puppy.

 

[8537]

So now that ethanol production has been proven to be the cause of a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey, and requires 70% more energy to produce than it yields, we can expect science-loving liberals to recognize its total failure and insist it be stopped?

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath while I watch you spin and twist and weasel your way out of your ridiculous claims.

This..

Proves my point entirely.

Really? Then you can point me to liberals calling for the end of ethanol subsidies like me, a science-hating conservative is doing?

One more month to end subsidies for dirty corn ethanol! | Friends of the Earth

 

[daveman]

This..

Proves my point entirely.

Really? Then you can point me to liberals calling for the end of ethanol subsidies like me, a science-hating conservative is doing?

This is not about "science", it's about winning your point.

And you think you won yours?

Using words like "weasel" and "spin" is really not conducive to discourse..is it?

And this is?

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.​

You'll probably object to being called a hypocrite, too.

 

[daveman]

This..

Proves my point entirely.

Really? Then you can point me to liberals calling for the end of ethanol subsidies like me, a science-hating conservative is doing?

One more month to end subsidies for dirty corn ethanol! | Friends of the Earth

Good! I hope they're successful!

Congressional Democrats will oppose their efforts, of course.

 

[Sallow]

Really? Then you can point me to liberals calling for the end of ethanol subsidies like me, a science-hating conservative is doing?

This is not about "science", it's about winning your point.

And you think you won yours?

Using words like "weasel" and "spin" is really not conducive to discourse..is it?

And this is?

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.​

You'll probably object to being called a hypocrite, too.

And Bob's your uncle.

Set game match.

 

[daveman]

This is not about "science", it's about winning your point.

And you think you won yours?

Using words like "weasel" and "spin" is really not conducive to discourse..is it?

And this is?

Conservatives would fail on the check part. As in "oh my..there were issues..we've totally failed". Or they wouldn't admit to issues.​

You'll probably object to being called a hypocrite, too.

And Bob's your uncle.

Set game match.

Hey, if you don't mind bitterly clinging to your double standards, I have no problem pointing them out.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sooo, science backed up corn-based ethanol was about votes, science backed up global warming was about money (and Oscar), is there any science left for Gore?

 

[8537]

Really? Then you can point me to liberals calling for the end of ethanol subsidies like me, a science-hating conservative is doing?

One more month to end subsidies for dirty corn ethanol! | Friends of the Earth

Good! I hope they're successful!

Congressional Democrats will oppose their efforts, of course.

Every person with any intention to ever be president will oppose their efforts.

 

[Annie]

He supported 'first generation' ethanol for votes. Now he supports 2nd generation ethanol for:

...Gore now says he supports second-generation ethanol to avoid using food, instead using wood, waste fiber, and grass. But the same Slate report shows that these technologies actually perform worse than corn for ethanol:

David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.

In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America’s total energy consumption, not decrease it.
​

Ethanol production won’t dent the US demand for fuel. At best, it nibbles around the edges. But, given Gore’s track record on his endorsements, perhaps he’s looking for another area for investment in Al Gore Inc.

Update: On that note, here’s this from commenter Selias:

Google avaiation biofuels and algae. Then Google Al Gore’s investment into biofuel companies like Abengoa.​

Then read this article last week in The Hill, written by none other than Abengoa VP, Christopher G. Standlee:​

America needs new investment: In the next generation of biofuels

Then ponder the Federal lands and wetlands bonanza buy-ups in recent years, even pointed out by our very own Michelle Malkin.

Why would the progressive Federal gov’t need so much land? With quotes like this:

The Department of Energy says algae grown on a 15,000-square-mile area, about the size of Maryland, could theoretically meet the nation’s oil needs.

…it’s easy to put this puzzle together.​

It’s all about Al Gore Inc.

So have you bought your carbon credits today?