NASCAR hits 5 million miles on 15% Ethanol blend, with 20% less emissions...

[Bill USA]

15. comparing SciAmer to Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) is ludicrous.

I am satisfied that you really think that Scientific American is scientific journal, that is, a journal which accepts for publication, research papers describing scientific studies - IF they pass their peer review process. Such is not the case with SciAmer. Such journals do not do scientific research themselves. When you cite SciAmer as an imprimatur of quality research you are citing the article they published and which you provided a link to.

The article was not, in fact, a research paper, describing a specific study and providing assumptions, methodology, source data and calculations for review by other researchers. It was a magazine article covering the decision by the California Air Resources Board to set GHG emissions for ethanol which would include Indirect Land Use Changes (ILUC) as hypothosized by timothy Searchinger (attorney). The article did cite the fact that "more than 100 scientists researching biofuel production ....signed a letter to Gov Scwarzenner calling the policy misguided and based on limited scientific models that improperly punish corn-based biofuel". I included that part of the article in my comnt 10:

(emphasis my own)

More than 100 scientists researching biofuel production agree, having signed a letter to California Gov. Schwarzenegger calling the policy misguided and based on limited scientific models that improperly punish corn-based biofuel.

[font color="red"]"Results from the model have not been verified enough to be useful," said Harvey Blanch, a professor of biochemical engineering at University California, Berkeley, and one of the signatories. "There needs to be more studies validating this method before applying it to a legal framework."[/font]

Earlier 'research' that purported to show corn based ethanol required more energy in the production than it delivered in the fuel, were consistently shown to include very questionable assumptions, data and unexplained computations. Since, efforts to convince people that corn ethanol fuel was an energy losing proposition had clearly failed, it became necessary to bring into use the ILUC hypothesis. This enabled Searchinger to add carbon emissions for ethanol that were purely hypothetical based upon missuse of certain economic priciing models.

As I pointed out in cmt 10, the actual real world data coming in show that Brazilian rainforest deforestation has gone DOWN 80% since 2004 (after increaseing for about 20-30 years) during a time when corn based ethanol production went UP FOURFOLD. Hypothoses are supposed to be validated with actual data. Apparently not so in this case.

in cmt 10 I noted that the Dept of Energy criticism of Searchinger 'study' computed GHG emissions - including the all important ILUC - using a quantity of corn ethanol that was TWICE THAT SET BY LAW. Some would call this a 'questionable' assumption. Since this figure was rather easily obtainable by checking the law, I consider this evidence of fraudulent argumentation.

more later... re your statements re farmland usage