Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    4:27 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Attention Memorial Day Drivers: Ethanol Lowering Gas Prices Back to Topics
gamechanger2011

Champion Author
Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 6:20:26 PM



"According to 2012 updated research conducted by economics professors at the University of Wisconsin and Iowa State University for the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), domestically-produced ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $1.09 per gallon in 2011. That is an additional 20-cent savings over the $0.89 these same economists recorded in 2010." Attention Memorial Day Drivers: Ethanol Lowering Gas Prices
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 10:09:38 PM

Sorry about the length of my posts. Honestly I don't even think about it. I just start writing and off it goes. I am sorry if you think anything I say is condescending as that again is not my intention. Not once have I said anything about rules. What I have said is if you post a link to make a point I think you should understand what the link says and be able to speak to what it says. Obviously they are not "rules" because I have no authority and no one cares most of the time.

As I have said before and will say again I will call out false information and bad studies on either side of the issue because propaganda that does not tell the truth is a bad thing whether it comes from one side or the other. When I say call out, don't take that as I am making rules, I mean it only in the very generic sense that I will post questions and comments about the subject. Believe me no one here feels threatened at all by that.

[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 5/31/2013 10:10:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 1:48:37 PM

BrerrabbittTx...."The discussions here have a tendency to degenerate to sound bites of information and the discussion is so much more deeper than that. If you are going to link an article with a pile of data and research behind it and then run away from it after a link is presented that challenges the premise of yours and not follow that up with discussion, then yes I will challenge your post."

it's done with a condescending tone and unless your the moderator I don't think that we have to follow your rules. . I check in only periodically, as we have a business to run. I am posting on my own time and dime. I will post and reply when it is convenient. But I do think that there should be a limit on characters used in each post. Editing would be nice. Most people won't take time to read posts that are too lengthy. Just a suggestion and my own opinion. It makes you look like you are attempting to hijack the threads, which I don't think that you are doing intentionally. I will give you the benefit of the doubt!

But I am willing to bury the hatchet and make nice.



[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 5/31/2013 1:49:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
James48843
Veteran Author Michigan

Posts:275
Points:167,885
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 12:05:47 PM

I found it rather interesting that in my local town, we have three stations that sold E85 until last week. Two of the three are owned by the same company. (Brighton Michigan, Corrigon Sunoco and the BP downtown, are the two).

This week, they discontinued E85 at one of the two stations, (Sunoco), and replaced it with "ETHANOL FREE RECREATIONAL GAS", according to the sign.

I asked inside why they discontinued E85- and was told "Oh- you can still get E85 just down the street at our other station- We are selling a lot of it there!" (At $3.09 a gallon, the E85 is a good deal right now).

Meanwhile the ETHANOL FREE RECREATIONAL GAS, now being sold at the Sunoco for people to use in boats, or other equipment, is being sold for $4.24 a gallon.

(E10 is $3.99 right now). So yes- ETHANOL IS SAVING A LOT OF MONEY for those who use E10 ($0.26 cents a gallon for E10 over E0,) and $1.15 a gallon for E85 over E0.

Renewable-clean- better priced ETHANOL.

Note: I burn E85 in my car.

That's my choice.

FLEX-FUEL owners have a CHOICE.

[Edited by: James48843 at 5/31/2013 12:09:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,441
Points:1,376,410
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 11:10:46 AM

Corn is for food and fuel.
Profile Pic
ggg452
Champion Author Manitoba

Posts:4,347
Points:982,445
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 11:02:00 AM

Corn is for food...not fuel.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 10:52:32 AM

brerrabbitTX.....you have been throwing insults at the ethanol supporters. I've taken a couple of personal hits myself. I have refrained from returning the favor. But I have to say that at times your postings are so excessive that it does appear that you are attempting to bogart the threads. But that's just my opinion.

If you feel I have thrown any insults at you then I welcome you to point them out and I will be more than happy to apologize for them. As far as capitalizing on threads, I am sorry if you feel that way. The discussions here have a tendency to degenerate to sound bites of information and the discussion is so much more deeper than that. If you are going to link an article with a pile of data and research behind it and then run away from it after a link is presented that challenges the premise of yours and not follow that up with discussion, then yes I will challenge your post.

That however is not an insult, that is normal discourse about a subject that is being discussed.

Nothing I have said here is insulting, and if you think it is then please point it out.

[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 5/31/2013 11:01:44 AM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,441
Points:1,376,410
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 10:05:19 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "Where has brerrabbitTX thrown an insult at anybody????"

I have seen it on multiple occasions. On the other hand, he/she did not use the homophobic slurs like you, at least not yet.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 9:47:35 AM

"And if I truly were attacking, my calling out Shockjock for a history of blocking others would have to be false. It isn't"

So who have I "blocked" Hannie, other then krz that is?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 9:45:10 AM

"brerrabbitTX.....you have been throwing insults at the ethanol supporters"

???????????

Where has brerrabbitTX thrown an insult at anybody????

He, if anything, seems to be a "take the middle of the road" voice of reason...
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 9:42:01 AM

Hannie....exactly!
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 9:30:03 AM

I have been resisting posting this comment.... oh never mind.

NOOOO! I CANT RESIST I MUST SAY IT.

Shockjock1961's comment below from May 30th at 2:26 PM is the single most ironic thing I have ever seen. Calling out a poster for ostrich-like behavior from a member who could appropriately and applicably change his handle to one that describes his behavior to a tee. Blockjock1961.

If this in itself qualifies as an "attack" then I am sorry. But that comment can't just be left alone. It crossed the line. And if I truly were attacking, my calling out Shockjock for a history of blocking others would have to be false. It isn't.



[Edited by: Hannie59 at 5/31/2013 9:35:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,441
Points:1,376,410
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 9:29:39 AM

Big Oil Shills always use the same tactic:

Whine, spin, half-truths, and lies.

What we see in this thread in nothing new.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 31, 2013 9:17:57 AM

brerrabbitTX.....you have been throwing insults at the ethanol supporters. I've taken a couple of personal hits myself. I have refrained from returning the favor. But I have to say that at times your postings are so excessive that it does appear that you are attempting to bogart the threads. But that's just my opinion.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 5:15:10 PM

I cannot see krzysiek ck comments so I don't know what he said. I do not have him on ignore as I have checked many times, but in response to the mudslinging comment, I am not mudslinging. I am merely pointing out the fact that two studies contridict each other and after reading both and understanding the methodology I find the MIT results much more compelling and based in sound economic principles. That is not mudslinging. That is reading the cases and using discernment to determine the more viable conclusion.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 4:43:26 PM

krzysiek ck...exactly. There has been a bit of mud slinging going on from the other side. I merely responded to negative statements being directed at ethanol supporters.

Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,441
Points:1,376,410
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 3:45:23 PM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "Why am I not surprised that you would bury your head in the sand like an ostrich whenever a piece of information comes along that doesn't jive with your particular interpretation of reality?"

Why am I not surprised that you would make a personal comment unrelated to the subject while whining about others doing the same.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 3:26:02 PM

" Just remember that we have the right not to view them.... The "ignore" button is a very tempting option at times!"

Why am I not surprised that you would bury your head in the sand like an ostrich whenever a piece of information comes along that doesn't jive with your particular interpretation of reality?
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 1:14:39 PM

"That's not a relivant discussion that's a "I win because I have the most recent link"
It's not a competition to must of us. I would believe that you view it as one though. It makes perfect sense.

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 5/30/2013 1:17:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 1:09:33 PM

"I will call out either side in this debate in a heartbeat if they are not telling the truth."
But it is merely your opinion. You absolutely have a right to do that. Just remember that we have the right not to view them. The "ignore" button is a very tempting option at times! I may be using it again soon!


[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 5/30/2013 1:10:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 11:35:20 AM

Hannie,
I am not calling you out for the post. I appreciate your opinions and enjoy the discussions. Your link to the information is certainly relevant to the topic but at the same time I am just trying to make sure people don't accept one off quotes. We live in a world of snapshot news where there is a lot of flash and no substance. I just did not want the rebuttle of the original article written off because of the articles dates. That's not a relivant discussion that's a "I win because I have the most recent link"

Most here don't even read the links and dismiss them out of hand if they don't support their arguement. I will not do that.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 11:28:08 AM

OK.

While my post isn't tied to the thread, it is easy to get lost in the scrapping going on here.

The below post was scrapping a la many on the anti ethanol side of the debate. It is a frequent tactic to try to bury things the don't want seen.

I will try to stay on thread topic as much as possible.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 9:53:34 AM

Hannie59,
I have seen the link you posted and it makes it's points. Some I don't agree with, some I do and some are questionable.

That however was not the point of this thread. gamechanger posted a link to an article saying a previously completed study had been updated for 2012 as one of the thousands of reasons to switch over to ethanol. That's fine use ethanol or don't use ethanol, I personally don't care. The bigger point is that you decry the use of Big Oil's lies and propacanda which I understand, but at the same time don't fall into the same tendencies by freely accepting any study that comes along that advocates ethanol. I will freely admit I take all of these type articles with a grain of salt. I look at them and make my own decisions about their validity. I have and continue to disagree with a lot of information oil backers put out there and I also disagree with some of what ethanol puts out there.

This article falls into that category. There is a saying that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You can make them say whatever you want them to say and this study does some very questionable things to arrive at their conclusion. The fly in the face of standard economic analysis and bend the numbers to make their case.

If we want to have a real discussion about moving forward we have to acknowledge that some of the information is not worth the paper it is printed on. In my personal opinion based on my reading of both papers this article and studyfall into that category.

I will call out either side in this debate in a heartbeat if they are not telling the truth.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 30, 2013 8:46:17 AM

"We Love Oil" has 15k+ views.

I will not repost the link again to maintain civility. However if you are reading this, please count downward 12 posts and click on "The Truth", in blue, for a great take on what's going on around us in the fuel market in this country.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 5/30/2013 8:47:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:58:17 PM

From the M.I.T study (for those who choose not to read it):

The Renewable Fuel Association continues to make claims regarding the effect of ethanol on gasoline prices. They claim that ethanol production decreased gasoline prices by an average of 89 cents per gallon and $1.09 per gallon in 2010 and 2011, respectively. We investigate the accuracy of this claim. We show that their results are driven by implausible economic assumptions and spurious statistical correlations. In doing so, we show that the empirical results are extremely sensitive to the empirical specification; however, empirical models that are most consistent with economic theory suggest effects that are near zero and statistically insignificant.

"While an instantaneous surprise elimination of all ethanol sold in the US might raise gasoline prices for a short time period, one cannot assume these instantaneous effects would persist for more than a few weeks. This is precisely what Du, Hayes, the RFA, and Secretary Vilsack have done."


[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 5/29/2013 11:01:51 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:41:26 PM

Point to where I said anything about censuring articles. I am not telling anyone what to post or not post. I am merely saying that when you are questioned about the study quoted in the article at least understand how the study was done and what it is saying and if there is sound methodology behind it. In this case there was not. I am not controlling anything or attempting to control anything. I am merely using the facts pointed out in the study to show it's flaws. I read the article and the underlying study, as well as the MIT rebuttal. I do this sort or research for a living and have two degrees that studied economic theory and study methodology. You want to call me out as a big oil supporter and dismiss anything I say as a result. That is not fair, I can question information as anyone else is free to do here. If you cannot understand and defend the information in your link and links posted to counter your information then you are doing your cause an injustice.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:33:23 PM

brerrabbitTX....I read the article. If you have a problem with it contact the RFA. You can't censure people by telling them what they can and can't post.
You are proving my point that I have expressed many times about how controlling the oil companies are....
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:26:13 PM

What you fail to do is read any of the articles you post or any of the articles that don't agree with your opinion that others post. I have said all along I have no problem with ethanol, and I don't. But I do have the same problem that Hannie has when he says that Big oil lies to state their case. I have a problem with either side of this debate publishing outright fabrications. The article you have pointed to is in fact an outright fabrication and the $1.09 a gallon savings is not a realistic number.

In the day and age we live in you can find links to articles that will say just about anything you want them to say. Educated and thoughtful people have to have discernment to be able to understand what is written, what methodology is used and is it accepted and acknowledged economics that is peer reviewed. Wild claims do not help either side and only serve to significantly muddy the waters.

All I am asking, and all I ever ask is to read everything in the article you post and be willing to defend the position instead of blindly agreeing because it says what you want it to say.

And finally, it's more than just an article, it is a link to a study that puts forth some faulty methodology and that is what I am calling into question. Don't assume because I question the results as an indictment of ethanol. It is a legitimate question that should be addressed with more than "it's just an article"
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:04:20 PM

It's an article. That's it. You have a right to your opinion. I'm posting for the other ethanol
supporters on this site and I will continue to post from ethanol publications.
You probably won't like those either.

Don't worry about my "zeal for ethanol." I think my zeal is just right! :)

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 5/29/2013 10:06:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 9:36:01 PM

"brerrabbittTX....it's an article. I didn't write it. It is a recent article. May 23 to be exact. If you and Shocky have issues with posted articles, then maybe it's time to write and publish your own. I would be happy to read them as well. It's easy to be a back seat driver. Time to get in the front seat and put your money where your mouth is."

What exactly do you mean be this statement? Your zeal for ethanol is truly causing you to leave all reason at the door. The article you posted is merely a restatement of studies conducted in 2010 and 2011 updated with 2012 information. Their methodology did not change and the conclusions they reached last year were wrong as proven by the MIT analysis of their work. Further if you read the MIT study you would see that. Last year one of the authors of the study you quote even admitted that there were "questionable" methodology used in the study which really invalidated his work at that point prior to the MIT paper. Read both and you will see the deficiencies of the work you quote. I don't need to publish anything because the MIT paper does quite well in explaining the problems with the article.

Finally I posted two responses to the article, not one. And in the first response I used a method that you or Hannie quoted in another post. The KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) by saying that if 10% of all fuel sold in America last year had 10% ethanol and ethanol is $1 cheaper for the whole year than gas then by default that would lower fuel costs by 10 cents a gallon, not $1.09. The MIT study using your articles data with corrected methodology comes to essentially the same result 8 to 13 cents savings per gallon.

As far as reading articles or having problems with them, did you even read the MIT one? If so do you understand what it is saying? I don't have a problem with any article. I just have a problem with shoddy economics and that my friend is what the article you posted is.
Profile Pic
wilgockid
Rookie Author Augusta

Posts:11
Points:102,395
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 6:50:57 PM

If not oil then what?
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 6:50:29 PM

brerrabbittTX....it's an article. I didn't write it. It is a recent article. May 23 to be exact. If you and Shocky have issues with posted articles, then maybe it's time to write and publish your own. I would be happy to read them as well. It's easy to be a back seat driver. Time to get in the front seat and put your money where your mouth is.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 5:24:15 PM

gamechanger wrote,

"Did you even open and read the link? The article is from May 23, 2013. Having problems reading Shocky?"

But if you read the article it is merely the continuation of a study that was done in 2010 and 2011 claiming the same results, so the MIT study that questions the data is still very relivant. If you read that paper it brings to light many errors and leaps of faith in the study and using sound economic principles ignored by the original study uses the premise to determine the real value between 8 and 13 cents a gallon and falling into the statistically insignificant range. This means sort of the same thing as polls that state margin of error factors.

So basically it directly contridicts the findings of the original study.

This is where these debates take a turn to the sureal because instead of reading all of the data and having at least some cursory understanding of economic theroy, sampling theroy, and a statistical and analytical background to personally vet the information posters are forced to revert to arguements about the dates listed on their links to the articles.

People here need to start thinking for themselves and stop quoting others data and think for themselves.

Profile Pic
yukonjack
Champion Author Georgia

Posts:5,802
Points:2,263,315
Joined:Oct 2004
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:43:21 AM

"Lowering gas prices"? Someone's been drinking the kool aid again.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,410
Points:25,045
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 10:40:26 AM

This study has been debunked before for methodology and assumtions based on the extrapolation of data across a broader base from a small sample size and last year when it came up one of the researchers of the study actually admitted the study was flawed. Not a sterling endorsement of their own work.

Part of the methodolgy is extrapolated from the avoidence of imported oil costs based on the displacement of gas sales due to ethanol usage. Another flaw of the study was the lack of acknowledgement of the effect of increased fuel exports offsetting the oil imports. Further problems centered around the assumption of import oil costs in favor of domestic crude. The problems with the methodology and therefore the results bring the entire study into question.

I am not saying that there is no economic benifit associated with ethanol but clearly due to the factors listed above in conjuction with a complete and total lack of discussion around the need for capital improvements to transport, tank and blend ethanol at the terminals across the country which further reduces the benifit of ethanol and at the end of the day the actual numbers produced by the study render it moot.

Simply stated using the tried and true back of the envelope methodology previously endorsed by the ethanol backers here, if you conceed that every gallon of gasoline pumped in the US in 2012 contained 10% ethanol (actual was 9.7%) and ethanol was $1 a gallon cheaper than gas for the entire year (which it was not) then the benifit of using ethanol was 10% of $1.00 which is 10 cents a gallon.

Given that simple mathmatic test how can you even begin to extrapolate a benifit of $1.09 a gallon? I am sorry but this does not pass the sniff test or even a simple logic test. Instead of relying on link after link to bias studies and web sites pushing an agenda lets just stop and think logically for ourselves for a minute.

[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 5/29/2013 10:44:50 AM EST]
Profile Pic
smugutu1234
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:2,441
Points:587,370
Joined:Feb 2013
Message Posted: May 29, 2013 8:49:18 AM

???
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 9:34:22 PM

More propaganda from Hannie lacking the one thing it claims to have, the TRUTH...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 3:42:19 PM

Great quotes from the video:

"I love how far oil companies will go, to elimanate any alternative. I mean who wants renewable fuels anyway?"

"High gas prices aren't going anywhere, no matter how much we drill"

"We love how oil companies want to keep us dependent on a dirty, climate warming, expensive fuel that is in short supply. Isn't that just great?"

The Bird "I love what this oil does for my feathers. SHINY!"

"I love how having our entire economy dependent on oil leaves us dependent on regimes from all over the world, who don't even like us."

"I hope we're stuck on oil for ever, and ever, and ever"

The Truth


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 5/28/2013 3:43:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:32:08 PM

"TRUTH IS TRUTH"

It's sad that the RFA provides so little of it...
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:27:33 PM

I'm reposting the video for others to see!
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:18:21 PM

Yep, finally some counter to the massive misinformation Shockjock and his fellow shills continue to propagate. TRUTH IS TRUTH.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 5/28/2013 12:20:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:18:17 PM

Hannie...I LOVE this video. I can't believe that I have missed it! The kids say it best! That's why I am so passionate about a solution. I don't want to leave my great grandchildren with on an earth that who's fossil fuels have been depleted from our greediness, and without solutions or alternatives!
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:09:47 PM

Please citizens... Shockjock1961 is not on your side as a consumer. He wants oil's monopoly to continue forever, and ever, and ever. Fuel choices are the only way to stop their grip on your life, your economy, and your country.

Not everyone has the time to research this issue, but I know exactly what is being done to you and your children's future. I know the conspiracy of lies the oil industry is using to turn you against any alternative. It is truly designed to manipulate you, deliberate and no holds barred. Gasoline has dominated this nation far too long.

For the REAL TRUTH, watch this video

What is really going on. You have choices!
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 12:02:28 PM

Shocky...it's just time for you to go bye bye! :)
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 11:35:59 AM

The mission of Fuels America and the RFA is a no-holds-barred defense of the corn ethanol industry and the defective federal biofuels standard, not the interests of U.S. consumers. If Fuels America had its way, Americans could bear a number of adverse impacts from the RFS, ranging from costs to repair vehicle engines and fuel systems damaged by using gasoline with higher levels of ethanol, to macro-economic costs associated with continued implementation of the RFS’ ethanol mandates – including significant increases in the cost of gasoline and diesel that ripple through the economy by 2015. That’s the backdrop for Fuels America’s video.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 11:31:53 AM

More ethanol fact or fiction...
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 11:15:08 AM

From Reb4's link:

"The Renewable Fuel Association continues to make claims regarding the effect of ethanol on gasoline prices. They claim that ethanol production decreased gasoline prices by an average of 89 cents per gallon and $1.09 per gallon in 2010 and 2011, respectively. We investigate the accuracy of this claim. We show that their results are driven by implausible economic assumptions and spurious statistical correlations. In doing so, we show that the empirical results are extremely sensitive to the empirical specification; however, empirical models that are most consistent with economic theory suggest effects that are near zero and statistically insignificant."



[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 5/28/2013 11:16:50 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 8:44:58 AM

" It's a current newsworthy article."

Newsworthy? Debatable, more like a propaganda piece, one based on "old" information at that...

"Oh Shocky...you have the intelligence of a 4 year old."

You can always tell when you run out of ways to defend your suspect positions GC, because you start in with the juvenile personal attacks, which, BTW, are not held in high regard by the MODS...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 5/28/2013 8:47:53 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Jmac2008
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:4,432
Points:1,423,870
Joined:Dec 2008
Message Posted: May 28, 2013 1:48:52 AM

gas prices in st. louis have not gone down just continually up over the years.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,000
Points:2,831,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 10:21:03 PM

"Sounds fairly current to me."

The research paper your link refered to was published in May of 2012, the reserach paper I directly linked to was published min Jan 2013. You clain my information is outdated, yet its over 7 months newer that what you have provided GC...
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,828
Points:2,473,050
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: May 27, 2013 7:05:59 PM

a counter article was produced by MIT the last time they produced this study

Every year the ethanol hired spokesmen produce this type of report to rally the ethanol shrills... I am sure a counter will soon be produced in a few months...

as usual...
Post a reply Back to Topics