new rebuttal of Mark Z Jacobson's work

[poopfuel]

http://permavegan.blogspot.com/2010/02/response-to-michael-hoexter-regarding.html

The gentleman is quite thorough on the scientific flaws of his work. Enjoy!

[wtmusic]

1. Did you read Jacobson's response?

It seems Permavegan missed a critical distinction in Jacobson's paper, and other objections are based on inconclusive data to begin with.

Not a big Jacobson fan, but IMO here he adequately defends his opposition to ethanol and debunks claims of influence from the petroleum industry.

[poopfuel]

2. did you read the corrections and then the followup?

[wtmusic]

3. yes

[poopfuel]

4. Still think Jacobson's work is slanted and lacking

NRDC wasn't fond of it either. They are very critical of biofuels when they feel it's needed. But they didn't think much of this work.

http://docs.nrdc.org/air/files/air_07042601A.pdf

[wtmusic]

5. Thanks for link, very helpful

"The author’s comments surrounding the release of his study overstate what the study actually shows."

I've felt way about other conclusions Jacobson has drawn.