Furthermore, if there’s anyone suspicious of paid scientists, it’s me. This goes way back to the tobacco “no connnection whatsoever - honest!” scientists, to those that currently shill for TexExxChevBPaco - “No global warming here, folks!!”.

And if the process doesn’t evolve from corn, and corn turns out as bad as those trashing it claim, I’m man enough to not only admit I’m wrong, but man enough to help change the process.

I don’t claim to be perfect, Dan.

Chris, we’ve provided some links from the Met Counsel. If think those are wrong or they are lying, you need a link to back that up.

Find me something that doesn’t.

That said, if we can get back to an administration that actually believes in science, and believes in ENFORCEMENT, this corn stuff is just a step to the best solution.

I’m looking forward to an administration that appoints people because of competence, NOT because they graduated from Falwell’s diploma-mill.

I can provide plenty of rationale, but you can G(C)Y as far as I’m concerned. I’m not doing your homework, for you.

And no, I’m not Mr. Rukavina.

Neither semantics or gotcha has had anything to do with any of my posts. I do my best to use current and relevant information and present my ideas showing the math whenever possible. Claiming otherwise is simply not true. You are correct that looking at an argument from both sides is critical in developing a strong position but to do so you have to use informative, persuasive and most critically, verifiable, arguments. Having “go fish” be your strongest argument for ethanol does nothing. The fact that you choose to ignore facts and numbers does not make them go away. If you feel “gotten” by needing to present a real argument I can’t help you.

As for the Danish company and wind turbines, I never commented on that subject.

So you’re a person who is pro ethanol, train to Duluth, has positions for which you can provide no rationale, relies on cliches as arguments, and when all else fails hides behind a false civility. You wouldn’t happen to be Tommy Rukavina would you?

You are right in that we can all find two arguments to each issue. But lets do this — lets agree on the criteria by which we will judge ethanol.

My criteria would be:
1. Does it help the environment?
2. Does it not create economic hardship here at home?

If we can agree that those are two high-priority criteria, I’m confident we would agree ethanol has many flaws.

Get off of your high horse. You’re the guy who can hardly write out a post here without slandering your political opponents. It’s called the politics of personal destruction and “folk” are sick of it too.

Just who has posted: ” we don’t need roads in this state.”

That’s the problem with your types; you’re always trying to make it an “either/or” proposition, with the side you’re against the devil.

It’s called wedge politics, and people are sick of it.

Say, KH?

Find me a credible site that takes one side (of anything), and - just for the (cheney) of it, I’ll find a credible site that takes the other. I’m a PolySci major (which means I was unemployed when I graduated), and we we’re taught to be able to argue BOTH sides of every issue - after all, if you can’t understand the other guy’s point, you’re not going to be able to understand the weaknesses in yours.

And you seem to be more interested in playing “Gotcha!” here - my point about the Danish company that folk are schmoozing to come here is that IT’S A DANISH CAOMPAY we’re schmoozing; NOT home-grown talent.

And I see that as a problem; some folk here are more interested in playing semantics and gotcha while ignoring the problem.

Kinda like you.

Well since all evidence shows that ethanol is a bad thing and you provide nothing to refute that I figured one possibility for your support was that you had a vested interest in the subsidies. It seems in general you have responded to information that you hold an incorrect position with childish quips an meaningless cliches. Your profound lack of substance can’t be covered up by the sheer volume of you posts. I am fine being civil while disagreeing but is seems that since you started posting here civility has not been part of you program.

As for my interest it is nothing more than this. I have been politically active since I was 15, which was more than 20 years ago, though never as part of a specific party. I have gained many fiends and coworkers over the years that work around or in government and spend a decent amount of time myself on projects who’s biggest issue is government approval. All of this has made me an anti-war (from the beginning not the Hillary way), small government, environmentally conscience individual with a fairly accurate bullshit meter.

p.s. http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/golf042604.cfm