I think you can expect the debate about ethanol to get nastier as time goes on and the marketplace increasingly looks for alternatives to fossil fuels.
I recently witnessed it firsthand on an Australian performance cars list I also happen to belong to. If you heard the disinformation campaign claims about ethanol now being taken at face value in the Aus media, you'd fall off your collective chair. I thought someone was having a joke, at first. Both the oil companies AND the major automakers are saying that even going to a TEN PERCENT ethanol blend in Aus will destroy the fuel systems on many vehicles due to rotting out soft fuel lines, clogging pumps, blah blah. The media has taken the cause to heart and is stirring up all manner of concern in the public. What floored me was that this was being taken as gospel on a list that includes guys who tear down their engines for giggles on a Saturday. This is a very, very savvy bunch and they were basically convinced ethanol blending would spark the end of the automotive world. A number of these guys are automotive techs in their day jobs and their employers are handing out tech literature that says this. They were flabberghasted when the few North Americans on the list chimed in saying we've been driving ethanol blends for up to 12 years or more in some areas. They simply would not believe it. Not sure if they still do. The big oil is not interested in energy alternatives, any more than big tobacco has ever been interested in public health. Mac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There was a great little book published years ago "How to lie with > statistics" It is a great resource for sifting through > propaganda (remember that word?) to determine the truth or bias, and a > great manual for tree huggers, PETA and other groups. It is probably > available at better university libraries. > > As to the actual cost of ethanol production, the latest data I have from > presumably reliable sources is that while it was not economical in the > early years, it is economical and has been for several years. The study in > question states that they took into consideration the cost of fuel used for > tillage, as if that was something new. It is not in any way new, but IS a > source of introducing hidden bias to slant the finding to your desired > result. Years ago, conventional tillage took lots of (cheap) fuel. Modern > one-pass, no-till methods us substantially less fuel. enough difference to > easily tilt a "study" > > True science starts with a question and seeks to eliminate bias to achieve > worthy results. Most of what passes for science today, including peer > reviewed publications, is junk non-science. In other words, there are > myriad ways to introduce hidden bias for those with low ethical standards. > > At 11:05 PM 7/18/2005, you wrote: >> I'm not saying that the article is wrong; I'm saying that I don't lend it >> any credibility without backup data. >
