backtop

Blog: Science Academic Misconduct Alleged in Climate Research
Michael Asher (Blog) - September 20, 2007 9:10 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 135 comment(s) - last by TheGreek.. on Sep 26 at 1:42 PM

Scientists from around the world gather to discuss Academic Misconduct  (Source: ESF)
The European Science Foundation takes aim at an "open sore" in scientific research

The European Science Foundation just wrapped up the first World Conference on Research Integrity.  Held in Lisbon, this historic three-day conference drew hundreds of scientists to address what they call the "open sore" of science -- the falsification or misrepresentation of research data.  The conference named two events from recent climate research: NASA's "Y2K" bug (first reported here at DailyTech) and a second incident with a much larger potential impact.

The subject is  two papers written in 1990 by SUNY professor Wei-Chyung Wang, both which used temperature data from China dating back to the 1950s. Their topic was "Urban Heat Islands," or UHIs. The concrete in buildings, the dark surfaces of rooftops, black pavement, waste heat from cars and factories all raise temperatures immediately around cities. These "heat islands," which have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, create a problem for accurately measuring trends. A thermometer near a city will always read warmer than one outside it ... sometimes by several degrees.

The IPCC cites one paper as primary justification for concluding UHIs are not affecting the global temperature record. It was chosen due to claims of high quality data, with Wang claiming stations "had few, if any changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times."

Last month, British mathematician Doug Keenan stumbled across Wang's research. Having analyzed the Chinese data himself, he was immediately suspicious. During the 50s and 60s, China was in a state of intense turmoil. It couldn't even determine its own population to within 100 million, so claims it had a large accurate network of weather stations that hadn't moved and been read continuously and consistently, always at the same time of day, seemed outrageous.

Keenan filed a Freedom of Information Act claim to find the source of Wang's data -- a report written jointly by the U.S. DOE and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He quickly found a smoking gun. The data came from only 84 stations, 60% of which had no history whatsoever, and the report claims "details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, observing times ... are not known."  Of the 35 remaining, over half had moved large distances (one station moving as many as five times) or had serious, known inconsistencies in the record. The report specifically contradicts Wang's claims, concluding that "even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization."

Keenan immediately filed a formal allegation of fraud against Wang, a charge which is pending investigation at this time.

Why is all this important? Because even though the Earth is warming, the rate of warming is critical. Even the IPCC admits natural factors are responsible for some of recent temperature rises. The entire theory of anthropogenic global warming hinges on one factor -- whether the rate is too fast to be explained by natural causes.

Put simply, if UHI effects really are raising temperature readings substantially, the primary justification for human-induced global warming vanishes. Kaput.

A recent survey of the U.S. weather station network found an astonishing 87% of all sites fail to meet the network's own guidelines, with stations on top of black pavement or hot rooftops, next to AC exhaust vents, above barbecue grills, etc. A survey of the Spanish network found over half to be located at airports; and most of the rest on military bases. It seems clear that, if UHI effects exist, it would seriously impact temperature readings.  And not just in the U.S., but globally.

Radiosonde (balloon-based) and satellite readings of atmospheric warming show a warming trend much smaller than that measured at the surface. The IPCC -- based largely on Wang's research -- concluded the satellite measurements are wrong, and the surface temperatures are accurate. This statement appears to now be overdue for reexamination.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'm torn...
By Spivonious on 9/21/2007 8:48:13 AM , Rating: 3
On one hand I think human-influenced global warming is load of BS.

On the other hand, the fear that has resulted from it has given us a much more energy-focused society.

Living in fear but getting ever more efficient designs, or having no fear but throwing money away on wasted energy?




RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 8:58:50 AM , Rating: 3
As long as energy costs money, that will itself encourage conservation. Obviously the amount of conversation is always proportional to the cost. For example, the switchover to CFL's will happen even without legislation once people realize it can cut their electric bills.

As a society, we should focus on things that are more important than CO2 and AGW. There are people suffering right now around the planet due to very solvable problems. I think some awareness of the effects of CO2 is a good thing (i.e., continued research), however the amount of focus and money spent on this "problem" way exceeds what it should. It is irresponsible.

Maybe we need to "conserve" our spending on global warming, to use those resources on more pressing issues.


RE: I'm torn...
By therealnickdanger on 9/21/2007 9:16:29 AM , Rating: 1
RE: I'm torn...
By Frallan on 9/21/2007 9:37:36 AM , Rating: 1
Well for example I say we stop consuming as much of the non-renewable resorces lets do it in a market connform way and price nonrenwable up with taxes and use that money to subsidice renewable substitutes....


RE: I'm torn...
By d0gb0y on 9/21/2007 10:26:01 AM , Rating: 2
Why?

If the only reason to not use non-renewable energy is the fact it may run out, then market forces will regulate the price based on supply. Why artificially inflate price when we had adequate supply?


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why?

Because the enviro-nuts said so. They have no problem dragging the economy down trying to achieve their goals. I mean look at the economic effect that artificially high fuel prices has had in Europe on the economy, standard of living, etc.


RE: I'm torn...
By TheGreek on 9/21/2007 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean look at the economic effect that artificially high fuel prices has had in Europe on the economy,

Are you suggesting Euro fuel prices were low before environmental concerns? You sure it doesn't have anything to do with a general import tax?

And what effects are you refering to? Higher efficiency?


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 4:13:27 PM , Rating: 1
The effect would be the lower standard of living and the loss of economic dominance of Europe over the past century. Do I have to spell out everything for you?


RE: I'm torn...
By TheGreek on 9/21/2007 4:19:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you suggesting Euro fuel prices were low before environmental concerns?

Got any cranial activity to address this first?

Perhaps later I'll consider your generalities as much as you consider others.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
No, you're just trying to provoke an argument - I am not suggesting that. But environmental concerns are used to justify/rationalize high fuel prices in Europe. This is the connection - it's kind of common sense. Anything else I can clear up for you?


RE: I'm torn...
By TheGreek on 9/21/2007 4:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anything else I can clear up for you?

Just this:

quote:
Are you suggesting Euro fuel prices were low before environmental concerns?


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 4:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
Again, for the reading-impared, I will state it again:
quote:
I am not suggesting that

Next?


RE: I'm torn...
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 1:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, for the reading-impared,

Refering to how many times a the cheap Euro fuel question had to be asked before you came clean? Doesn't appear to be intellectually honest.

quote:
I am not suggesting that

Then what was the point?


RE: I'm torn...
By grenableu on 9/21/2007 10:04:27 AM , Rating: 5
There's a big problem with relying on fear to generate change. What happens when the average Joe finds out he's been lied to? The public won't just ignore GW, they'll be suspicious of everything "environmental". The backlash will set the movement back 50 years.


RE: I'm torn...
By d0gb0y on 9/21/2007 10:29:20 AM , Rating: 3
Again, if there is no GW problem, then shouldn't the "movement" be at least stopped? I mean, politicians in Britain are proposing banning plasma televisions because of GW. If GW is BS, then let’s stop all the BS proposals.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 11:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, but I think it's too late - the damage has probably been done. The hype, rallying, and even some regulations have gone way ahead of the research.

One almost gets the impression this was done on purpose, like the strategy was to call people into action before the research would conclusively show it to be a very minor problem.

I mean, it's not like it's the first time that this happened. Does anyone know what research or real analysis went behind the establishment of the current recycling culture that we have now? Answer: basically none. It boggles the mind to think about.


RE: I'm torn...
By Scorpion on 9/21/2007 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 5
So you're telling me that recycling is worthless? As someone who's regularly been to landfills and has worked at a recycling depot for a short period, I'd have to seriously disagree. Is it entirely cost effective? Possible not, however, the reuse of viable materials is not something should be discouraged or laughed about. "Basically none" isn't a scientific answer.

What damage has been done by the calls to curb Global Warming? I get confused by all of you Anti-GW types. On one side of your mouths you'll say there is no GW, and on the other side you'll say that there is, but it's not man made. Well, figure out which one it is. I'm not a GW pariah, but I am a scientist, and I do know that there is reputable data to backup claims that there is warming, and it isn't following a regular cycle. Is it man-made? I'm inclined to suspect so, at least in some part, but being a person who understands science and research I know that my conclusions will change as more research is done.

All of you people think this is some vast conspiracy. I liken you to the people who think that aliens visit us or 911 was an inside job. What I don't understand is how being proactive about curbing our environmental impacts and energy consuption is somehow "letting the terrorist win" or is a bad thing. It's absolutely not! It is driving research and technology and opening new markets and opportunities for jobs. America desperately needs to be on the scientific edge again, and I think it's time we stop maintaining the status-quo, or this backward slide of loosing our scientific ingenuity.

Even if conclusions were to eventually indicate that there is some natural phenomenon behind the recent climate changes how does it put us at a disadvantage to ensure that we aren't making it any worse. No I don't believe that erring on the side of caution is wrong, or bad for our country in any way. The benefits are less consumption of unreplenishable resources, reducing pollution to our air and water, and driving a new scientific and engineering era that would boost our economy.


RE: I'm torn...
By porkpie on 9/21/2007 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"how does it put us at a disadvantage to ensure that we aren't making it any worse
Blowing trillions of dollars on a problem that doesn't exist certainly does "put us at a disadvantage". Raising the cost of energy to the point it cripples our economy puts us at a disadvantage. Ignoring real problems to focus on illusionary issues puts us at a disadvantage.

Besides, we're already overdue for our next ice age. What if "stopping global warming" is the worst thing we could do?


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 1:00:18 PM , Rating: 3
Now it is you who is spreading the FUD.

quote:
Blowing trillions of dollars on a problem that doesn't exist

Two problems here... first, who has spent trillions of dollars on these issues? And second, whether the problem exists or not is not something that *anyone* can say for certain at this point in time.

quote:
Raising the cost of energy to the point it cripples our economy puts us at a disadvantage

Do you realize that a large reason why gasoline prices haven't gone up in recent months (even though crude is at a record high) is because gasoline is now mixed with "renewable" energy, and it offsets the rising costs of crude oil? How is this hurting the economy?

quote:
Ignoring real problems to focus on illusionary issues puts us at a disadvantage

Real issues such as what? Iraq? Another benefit of all this research that is going into alt energy is that, hopefully, some day we can reduce our dependance on oil. Then a *real* issue such as Iraq wouldn't have even become an issue. There are many benefits to researching alternative energy... reducing our impact on the environment is just one of them.


RE: I'm torn...
By porkpie on 9/21/2007 1:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
first, who has spent trillions of dollars on these issues?
Kyoto costs alone are $400B to date, and thats only been in effect a few years for a few nations. And Kyoto is just the tip of a very large iceberg. A few trillion is a very conservative estimate of total impact.

quote:
whether the problem exists or not is not something that *anyone* can say for certain at this point in time.
Great, glad you agree. Now please inform the media to stop lying to us with the "debate is over" nonsense.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 1:24:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Kyoto costs alone are $400B to date


Where did you get that number? According to the DoE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/cost.html), the estimated loss to the economy of implementing the Kyoto protocol in the USA at the year 2010 (its even a projection, the number spent already isn't nearly that high!) is between 32 and 62 billion.

quote:
Now please inform the media to stop lying to us with the "debate is over" nonsense


To you, the debate is obviously over. You have already determined that there is no issue here, judging from your previous posts.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 1:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
You're just looking at a small fraction of the costs - a couple years of the cost to only the US economy. Consider the global scope times the 20+ years of implementation. Most estimates I've see are over $1T to the global economy.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 1:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
The cost is an estimate for more than just a couple years to the US economy. However, the article I've linked to also provides an estimate for up to 2020! The estimate of losses to the US economy is between 46 billion and $102 billion. That's for 14 years of implementing Kyoto in the US. Compare that to, say, the cost of the Iraq war. The implementation is a tiny amount of total GDP in the US, just like it would be in any other country.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 2:22:38 PM , Rating: 3
I believe the money we spent on the Iraq war is wasted, so that argument isn't going to go far with me personally. And to be sure, wasting money on one endeavor doesn't justify wasting it on another, although that seems to be the logic amongst politicians sometimes.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 2:23:05 PM , Rating: 1
Typical left-wing fiscal policy; its ONLY an economic loss of $102,000,000,000, or the equivalent to the annual income of nearly 3 million working American's, so we can afford to blow that on high-minded ideals like saving polar bears. Iraq is the only fiscal measuring stick that apparently matters? A military engagement from which we can't morally retreat from as yet? Which has nothing to do with any of this?

That's 46 - 102 billion that is better off in the pockets of the American people. Considering that money doesn't just sit idle but gets fed back in to the wealth creation cycle, the long-term implications of blowing 102 billion needlessly are massive.

I swear I wish I was a trillionaire like the rest of you lefties so I could afford to play with numbers ranging in the billions. Oh, or is it easier since it's other peoples money?

Your link is now dead too, for whatever its worth.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 2:32:20 PM , Rating: 3
Do you really believe that the money would thrown away or something? That cost is what the government would spend, paying people to come up with a solution. It would create jobs, go to research, etc. And it would affect a whole bunch of people, unlike some policies from the "right" (bridge to nowhere in Alaska?).

BTW, I'm neither left or right... both Dems and Republicans have issues I strongly agree & disagree w/.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 2:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really believe that the money would thrown away or something?

The money being expended on an imaginary problem would be a great example of throwing it away.

What's your definition of throwing it away?


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 3:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really believe that the money would thrown away or something?


I still can't get your link to work, but I dug one up recently with similar cost figures and they were, in fact, clearly indicated as a loss. $14 billion, according to the DOE in 1999 I believe it was, could be spent or lost towards Kyoto goals while not negatively impacting the economy. The figures that I believe were in line with yours represented actual economic loss -- in other words, yes, money thrown down the drain to no economic benefit to society -- except, I suppose, saving polar bears, as I said.


RE: I'm torn...
By TheGreek on 9/21/2007 4:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Typical left-wing fiscal policy;

Oh what a blessing right-wing fundamentialism has been the last seven years. It doesn't get any better than this.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 4:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh what a blessing right-wing fundamentialism has been the last seven years.


Have I ever said I liked Bush's odd habit of big spending? No. You won't find a post where I do so; closest would be merely pointing out the fact that the deficit is both inconsequential in size and rapidly shrinking, which is an economic observation and not even a moral judgement of what I think of Bush's spending.

Definitely, I'd love to take an AK-47 to the federal budget. Nice shot at trying to paint a picture of a monolithic Republican national party, though!


RE: I'm torn...
By Spivonious on 9/24/2007 11:37:47 AM , Rating: 3
3 million Americans...you do know that there's over 300 million of us? If spending 1 percent of the populations money would get Kyoto implemented, then I'm all for it. Pollution is disgusting.


RE: I'm torn...
By porkpie on 9/21/2007 1:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the estimated loss to the economy of implementing the Kyoto protocol in the USA at the year 2010 (its even a projection, the number spent already isn't nearly that high!) is between 32 and 62 billion.
Did you forget the US isn't the only country in the world? Global costs for Kyoto are much higher.

Worse Kyoto doesn't even come close to solving the problem (assuming it exists of course). To roll back emissions to the point of stopping GW, you'd need a program a hundred times larger and more costly. A hundred trillion dollars is a very conservative estimate.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 1:52:12 PM , Rating: 3
Did you forget everythig you have posted until now? Is your memory really that short?

Let me repeat it for you:

First, you state:
quote:
Blowing trillions of dollars

You then modify that to:
quote:
Kyoto costs alone are $400B to date, and thats only been in effect a few years for a few nations

I then point out the US (which is most likely by far the most expensive to implement Kyoto) is projecting that Kyoto WOULD cost (but it didn't) between 32 and 64 billion.

Of course I realize that the US isn't the only country in the world. However, I pointed out how much it would cost the US to implement Kyoto. From that number, your claim that we've spent $400 billion on Kyoto seems ridiculous. Again, do you have a link that backs that up? Or did you just make it up?

On second thought, its obvious you don't even realize how much the costs are. Now you're stating $100 trillion as a conservative estimate? Exactly how much money do you think there is in the world? Cause that's probably one of the funniest things I've read recently.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
First, the US didn't implement Kyoto. You are talking like we did.

Second, the economic costs are difficult to exactly predict, just like global warming itself. In other words, nobody realizes the exact, total cost. But it is clear to everyone that the cost to developed nations is high. Are you arguing that you don't believe there is a very significant cost?

And look at the benefits - 0.07°C @ $1T was the last estimate I saw. Do you think it is worth it?

But maybe you're the type that things we could due without that big chunk of our GDP. :o)


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 2:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
I know we didn't implement it... we were going to, but then Bush came around. But that would impact the numbers even more, wouldn't it? If the world has already spent all that money on Kyoto... then who exactly is spending it? I'm not aware of any countries that have poured a ton of money into it (not to the likes that would add up to a trillion dollars, anyways...)

The whole point is that implementing Kyoto isn't that huge of a deal. Yes, it costs money. But not nearly as much money as some other projects of much less significance.

BTW, I do not think -.07°C for $1T would be worth it, but I've never seen an estimate like that. Not sure where you got it. Also, I assume that's referring to our contributions to global warming, unless some study claimed we can reverse natural global warming that is taking place.


RE: I'm torn...
By porkpie on 9/21/2007 2:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The whole point is that implementing Kyoto isn't that huge of a deal
The 3rd IPCC Report estimated a lowering of GDP growth by 1.5%. Multiply that by all committed countries, and you get roughly $150B/year. If the US (and more importantly, nations like China, India and the rest of the world sign on) the cost is 3+ times higher.

Kyoto "isn't a big deal" only in its effects, which the IPCC estimates will be only 0.07 degrees over the next 50 years (other estimates are 1/3 this) But Kyoto is definitely a big deal for COST.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 1:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you realize that a large reason why gasoline prices haven't gone up in recent months (even though crude is at a record high) is because gasoline is now mixed with "renewable" energy, and it offsets the rising costs of crude oil? How is this hurting the economy?

Huh, are you saying that ethanol costs less than gasoline?


RE: I'm torn...
By Chimpee on 9/24/2007 4:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think a simpler answer would be demand has gone and supply has been stable to keep the price down.


RE: I'm torn...
By Chimpee on 9/24/2007 4:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
forgot to put down after gone.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 1:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Real issues such as what?

How about poverty, for one. How about AIDS? The list goes on and on... There are a lot of real problems problems that right now are causing significant human suffering.


RE: I'm torn...
By Scorpion on 9/21/2007 1:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, but we also have to have economic and scientific advancements to be able to tackle those issues as well. We can't forfeit one for the other.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 2:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
All we need to conquer poverty is at least a moderate level of economic freedom and corruption in Africa and to convince the govenrments there that haven't already figured it out that export-led growth, not standing in the way of foreign investment and free market capitalism are the best path from the corn field to the megalopolis.

No huge advancement needed there. One might also suggest that with a little economic prosperity, AIDS could be combatted more effectively when men have something to do with their free time rather than rape pre-teen girls.


RE: I'm torn...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/21/2007 4:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All we need to conquer poverty is at least a moderate level of economic freedom and corruption in Africa and to convince the govenrments there that haven't already figured it out that export-led growth, not standing in the way of foreign investment and free market capitalism are the best path from the corn field to the megalopolis.

Good luck convincing the people in Africa, they do it to themselves.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/22/2007 1:19:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good luck convincing the people in Africa, they do it to themselves.


No contesting that from me. Some, like Rwanda, learn and grow. Others, like Zimbabwe, rot.

An easier topic approach and fix though still than global warming or the likes. A solution here is already known, and businesses would surely like to move in and repeat the Asian Tiger economic miracle. Just need to do what you said.. promote the proper conditions on the ground.


RE: I'm torn...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/21/2007 1:20:30 PM , Rating: 4
> "a large reason why gasoline prices haven't gone up in recent months ...is because gasoline is now mixed with "renewable" energy, and it offsets the rising costs of crude oil?"

The is the exact opposite of the truth. The "renewable" energy in gasoline is ethanol. In the US, the most common blend is E5, which is only a 5% mix. That ethanol is substantially more expensive than the gasoline (or the MTBE) it replaced, even at $80/bbl petroleum.

The ethanol switchover raised pump prices considerably.

Worse, US ethanol production relies heavily on oil and other fossil fuels. So a gallon of ethanol doesn't even supplant a gallon of oil, but a significantly smaller fraction.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 1:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ethanol switchover raised pump prices considerably.

Can you provide a link that supports that claim? From everything I've been reading recently, Ethanol has actually been dropping in price while gasoline has been going up in price. In fact, ethanol has been more competetive in price for several years now (http://www.ohiocorn.org/ethanolgaspoints.html).

Another major benefit is that a large percentage of ethanol production takes place in the US. We're not sending our money to Venezuela. It all stays at home and provides jobs.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 1:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like you might be right regarding ethanol prices, at least recently:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/graphs/component...

Ethanol prices have typically been higher than gasoline, but it looks like the oversupply in the market (no doubt due to tax credits/incentives) has brought the price down this year.

Of course, don't forget to factor in the lower MPG your car will get with ethanol in the "cost" picture.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 2:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no doubt due to tax credits/incentives

Oh, I completely agree its because of the incentives (which I'm all for). However, it is keeping our prices down at the moment. How it will do in the future is anyone's guess, but if China and India keep growing like they are, the difference in price will probably only grow.


RE: I'm torn...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/21/2007 2:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Ethanol's true cost to the taxpayer is some 30%-40% higher, due to hidden subsidy costs, whereas gasoline is, when you subtract off federal and state taxes, actually some 15% cheaper than the pump price suggests.

Add in the fact that ethanol has some 30% less BTUs per gallon, and you get a true cost for ethanol that, even with its recent price drop, is still much higher than gasoline.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 2:27:42 PM , Rating: 1
Huh?

What kind of a comparison is that? The "true cost" is what you pay at the pump. Sure, theoretically if we added the "opportunity cost" of the incentives (its not really a cost since the government isn't paying for it) and subtracted the cost of taxes from gasoline, then you might come up with some number that supports your claim (which is theoretical anyways... it does not reflect how much Joe would spend at the gas station when filling up).

However, you should not do that. The most accurate way to judge the cost is by looking at what we pay for something. If you start factoring other "hypothetical" situations, sooner or later someone will say that you need to add the cost of the Iraq war to the price of gasoline.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, you should not do that. The most accurate way to judge the cost is by looking at what we pay for something.


Thats.. spectacularly wrong.

By that measure, wow, Iran's gasoline is cheap. What's wrong with us? :P

Comparing costs that include opportunity cost is exactly the way everything should be compared, as that's the only relevant measure when comparing policy choices, etc. Unless, of course, you're an accountant cooking books to make them more appealing or a politician.


RE: I'm torn...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/21/2007 2:40:08 PM , Rating: 5
> "The "true cost" is what you pay at the pump"

The true cost is the total you pay in total. What you're saying is akin to the belief that an IRS refund check is free money. It's not...its money you earned, that is merely being returned to you.

When you buy a gallon of ethanol at the pump, you pay the pump price plus additional taxes, in the form of all the subsidies used to lower its price. The government pays them to the producer, and then takes it out of your paycheck. You're still paying, just the cost is less visible.

Similarly, when you buy a gallon of gasoline, some 40-50 cents goes to the government for road maintenance. Since that is a cost that must be paid (if we want to drive on roads) its just a convenient way to bill us. The true cost of "just" the fuel is therefore 40-50 cents less. The difference saves us from having the government bill us for road repairs in the form of higher income taxes (or some other tax)

These are real factors, already here today, not hypothetical future concerns. Add to them the lost mileage from ethanol's 30% lower energy content, and the extra costs the refinery incurs via mixing ethanol with gas in the first place, and you see why ethanol is a very expensive proposition for us taxpayers.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 2:59:33 PM , Rating: 1
This is nothing compared to an IRS refund. An IRS refund is money that is owed to you by the government because you overpaid. The incentives for ethanol are tax breaks to producers. Saying they are the same is completely wrong.

Your argument that we pay for tax incentives is flawed. Am I paying for someone else's taxes because I am in a higher income tax bracket? Of course not, everyone has their own taxes to pay, and that is their contribution to society.

Your 40-50 cent tax on gasoline is also flawed. The tax is on the finished product being sold to the consumer. When I go to the gas station and buy a galon of gas, it doesn't matter if it has 0% ethanol or it is 100% ethanol. The same 40-50 cents is added on. Therefore, if you are going to subtract it from the cost of gasoline, you also need to subtract it from the cost of ethanol.

The 30% lost milage is also a flawed comparison. You're assuming 100% ethanol. In fact, the percentage is closer to 5-10%. The resulting mix does not have a 30% milage penalty.

The entire point was that ethanol is keeping the price of gasoline down. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.


RE: I'm torn...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/21/2007 3:30:43 PM , Rating: 4
> "The incentives for ethanol are tax breaks to producers."

Tax breaks and direct payments to the producers. In some states, its as high as 20 cents/gallon. In the form of a check, taken out of your and my tax dollars, paid directly to them.

> "When I go to the gas station and buy a galon of gas, it doesn't matter if it has 0% ethanol or it is 100% ethanol. The same 40-50 cents is added on"

Wrong again. There is an excise tax exemption for ethanol-blended fuels, based on the ratio of the ethanol within it.

> "The 30% lost milage is also a flawed comparison. You're assuming 100% ethanol. In fact, the percentage is closer to 5-10%. The resulting mix does not have a 30% milage penalty."

Incorrect logic. When you blend in a gallon of ethanol into gasoline, you replace one gallon of gas by volume. It doesn't matter how many gallons you blend into. You still saved only a gallon of gas. And that gallon of ethanol you added in will carry you only about 70% as far as the gallon of gas you took out.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 4:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In some states, its as high as 20 cents/gallon


Where did you get this information? Where I live, the only incentive is a federal one. It provides assistance only to small producers that produce up to 60 million gallons. The incentive is 10 cents for the first 15 million gallons, and nothing else. Considering that we're talking about billions of gallons used up by the USA, this is a rather small number.

quote:
There is an excise tax exemption for ethanol-blended fuels, based on the ratio of the ethanol within it.

Incorrect. The excise tax exemption was removed in 2004 by president bush. As of 2004, the exact same amount of taxes go to the Highway Trust Fund from ethanol as from gasoline (new tax credits were introduced, but the taxes paid at the pump are the exact same for both gasoline and ethanol).

As to the mileage lost, there's different reports (depending on the source) of the net effect of mixing ethanol and gasoline. However, there's a ton of research going into this field. People are finding more clever ways to mix ethanol and gas (http://techfreep.com/mit-ups-mpg-30-percent-with-e... Stuff like this may even outdo traditional unleaded gasoline engines.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you realize that a large reason why gasoline prices haven't gone up in recent months (even though crude is at a record high) is because gasoline is now mixed with "renewable" energy, and it offsets the rising costs of crude oil? How is this hurting the economy?


Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/20749660

That was practically the first Google link, and I believe it sums it up without incorporating complicating factors, like how much or little effect importing gasoline cracked from more expensive Brent sweet crude has.

I was only skiming for wildly inaccurate accusations and they set of a flag. Disappointed nobody else called you on it; easiest part of your post to debunk. :P The rest was just opinion.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 2:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Woops, sorry, people did call Murst on it, they just hid from me under a torrent of other posts. Sorry. Johnny-come-lately.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 2:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the article you referenced? It supports my claim, instead of refuting it:

quote:
Epperson says another factor that could help keep gasoline prices at current levels is ethanol. Opis analyst Tom Kloza told her that ethanol prices are about 40 cents below reformulated gasoline futures. Kloza says ethanol is going to make its way into the U.S. markets that haven't embraced it yet, and that's likely to keep the lid on unleaded gasoline prices.


RE: I'm torn...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/21/2007 2:46:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "It supports my claim, instead of refuting it"

No, and its easy to see why with a simple thought experiment. Let's say ethanol cost $100/gallon to manufacture, and the government rebated producers 99% of that cost. Now, each gallon is still costing us $100 increased taxes, but since the subsidized product is what's on the market, it would keep gasoline prices from rising much above that level.

That's why government interference in a market is dangerous. In such a case, millions of Americans would happily buy ethanol to "save" a few pennies, though each gallon costs them far more in the long run.

The true situation isn't quite so bad, but ethanol still costs us considerable more than gasoline. If ethanol production efficiency rises much more, or oil hits $120/bbl, then that situation may change. But for now, its a losing proposition.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 3:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the quote I provided?

I just don't see how you can state that the article doesn't support my claim, when it does exactly that. Now, you could argue that the article is incorrect, but you don't seem to be doing that.


RE: I'm torn...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/21/2007 3:34:45 PM , Rating: 3
> "Did you miss the quote I provided?"

No, the article is correct, but you're not interpreting correctly. Subsidized ethanol can indeed set a cap on pump prices. But the true cost to consumers is the pump cost plus hidden taxes and subsidies.

If I buy a gallon of ethanol and save 10 cents at the pump, but pay 25 cents more at tax time, have I saved or lost money?


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/21/2007 3:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
Masher went a way towards answering your post, but not the direction I'd of taken.

Ethanol represents a tiny portion of the sum and a relatively tiny portion of the cost -- by virtue of being a 5% mix. In other words, it's helpful at the margin, but oil prices are up significantly. With a little critical thinking, therefore, one can realize that the truely relevant part of my link is the following:

quote:
Epperson says refining margins have contracted considerably since earlier in the summer. That factor is showing up in gasoline cracks, which is the difference between the price of crude and the wholesale price of gasoline.

"The crack has fallen more than $30 since May. Analysts tell me that they are seeing gasoline demand fall, which usually happens after Labor Day, and they are also expecting a lighter winter turnaround season," says Epperson. "Winter turnaround for refiners is when they prepare to cross over to heating oil production from gasoline production."


Now that, on the otherhand, represents a huge part of the total cost, not just a few marginal pennies here and there. Of course options traders (a breed of man more brave than I) can probably try to make money off that sliver of information, once more fully researched, but isn't relevant to our discussion.

Bottom line: Gas prices are stable because refineries are taking the increasing crude prices on the chin, not because ethanol is magically making a dent.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 3:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with you that refinery output vs demand has a much greater impact on prices than ethanol. However, I never stated that ethanol is the primary reason why gas prices have been stable while crude increased.

This entire discussion started because of the claim that reasearch into "greener" energy has caused the price of energy to go up. However, ethanol has had the opposite effect on gasoline.

There are many other factors that go into the price of gasoline, some greater while others smaller, but I just wanted to clear up the myth that research into cleaner forms of energy always results in a price increase. This is just not true, and I think in the future renewable energy will be much cheaper than traditional forms of energy (mainly due to increasing costs of non-renewable resources, as opposed to decreasing costs of renewable energy).


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 3:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
How do you resolve
quote:
I never stated that ethanol is the primary reason why gas prices have been stable while crude increased.

against this
quote:
Do you realize that a large reason why gasoline prices haven't gone up in recent months (even though crude is at a record high) is because gasoline is now mixed with "renewable" energy, and it offsets the rising costs of crude oil?

???

Are you saying that you weren't referring to ethanol in the first place?!?


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 4:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to say that "primary" and "large" mean the same thing?

The statements are not contradictory.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 4:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you trying to say that "primary" and "large" mean the same thing?

I figured you might say that, and that tells me that you are being dishonest, since clearly your original statement conveyed that exact same meaning. It's not a very sporting way to concede the debate, but I guess it will do.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 4:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I figured you might say that


You mean, you figured I might say what I actually meant? You obviously had no problem seeing what I meant, and I'm guessing others did too. Believe me, if Masher for a second thought I was trying to say that Ethanol is the primary reason gas prices are not going up, he would have called me on it in a heartbeat. The simple fact is that there isn't enough ethanol to do that (yet) - that's obvious.

However, it certainly doesn't change the fact that ethanol remains a large reason why gas prices haven't gone up. There's obviously a lot of factors in gas price.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 4:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, it certainly doesn't change the fact that ethanol remains a large reason why gas prices haven't gone up. There's obviously a lot of factors in gas price.

You haven't proved "primary" or "major," and by the way, you did get called on that. Maybe you're in denial, but I can't help you with that.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 5:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... lets see.. there are a lot of factors that go into gasoline prices. The article posted above talked of two main reasons (the first and largest being refineries/demand and second being ethanol) for stable gasoline prices. Yet you still expect me to have to "prove" to you that it is a large reason?

If you're not going to believe media sources that quote experts in the field about this, then there's no way you're going to believe me no matter what I say.


RE: I'm torn...
By Ringold on 9/22/2007 1:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, if you want to continue to suggest its a large contribution to gasoline contracts prices, you'd need to prove how a 5% component could possibly keep at bay, what, a 40% increase in raw input costs for refiners? That component could double, go to zero, or anything inbetween and be pennies on the margin.

If you want to concede that ethanol prices play a "small" role, then that's not an incorrect position (but not something I'd want to trade futures contracts on), but "large", "significant", or whatever else is baseless.


RE: I'm torn...
By Murst on 9/21/2007 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
I should have resisted the urge to post in this thread so I could rate you up. Unfortunately, I can't see the future :(


RE: I'm torn...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/21/2007 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 4
> "there is reputable data to backup claims that there is warming, and it isn't following a regular cycle."

You might want to reexamine that data. The earth has been far warmer and colder in its history. And a large amount of recent research has contradicted our earlier belief that past climate change was a slow process. Many times the climate has shifted dramatically in just a few decades time, at a rate much faster than what we're seeing today.

That of course doesn't disprove AGW by itself. But it does remove one of the larger factors supporting it.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 12:58:51 PM , Rating: 1
"Basically none" refers to the amount of research and analysis that went into driving the current recycling frenzy. As a point of fact, some recycling (e.g., aluminum) is beneficial, while some other forms of recycling is not. But my point is that recycling became an established pattern for many Americans, although there was little data to back up the actual benefits.

So in that regard, it is conceivable that, due to fear of AGW, we might somehow be duped into expending considerable resources unnecessarily into CO2 mitigation. This could potentially happen ahead of "real science," as it did with recycling.

Just to clarify, global warming is almost certainly happening - the question is and has always been whether it is man-induced - that is the controversy.

And being preemtive makes sense in some things, but not in others. For example, the Bush Adminstration has demonstrated the folly of a preemptive war doctrine. Preemptive environmentalism would be great if it didn't cost anything - but the potential costs could be staggering.


RE: I'm torn...
By TheGreek on 9/21/2007 4:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're telling me that recycling is worthless?

If he finds anything that costs him money the answer will be yes, what else happens is of no concern.


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 4:10:37 PM , Rating: 3
Here, I corrected that for you:
quote:
If he finds anything useless that costs him money the answer will be yes

Sorry, I am funny that way.


RE: I'm torn...
By TheGreek on 9/21/2007 4:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
Useless or useful in your case. Of course you would ignore any facts that would make it useful, so in that framework it would all be useless as "you say".


RE: I'm torn...
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 4:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
That's right, I would consider 0.07°C "useless," at least not worth the $1T (or whatever huge number) price tag. Especially when we have no clue about the incremental effects, except for numerous all-over-the-board extrapolations from models. And that's even if you believe the 0.07°C figure, which is also a guestimate.


RE: I'm torn...
By rsmech on 9/21/2007 11:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All of you people think this is some vast conspiracy. I liken you to the people who think that aliens visit us or 911 was an inside job.


Just as I can liken all of you to people who think man caused GW to those who believed Adolf was correct in assuming there was such a thing as a master race or to an extremest who believes you must believe as he does or deserve death.

Neither analogy is fair so I retract my nonsense if you retract yours.