The Auto Channel
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
Official Website of the New Car Buyer

Another One Bites The Dust: Ethanol Opponents Unable To Meet The Challenge Of Truth


PHOTO

Updated February 21, 2018

MEET THE BLOWHARDS: Jerry Taylor, David Shepardson, Tim Searchinger, Lauren Fix, Jay Leno, Debbie Carlson, Ed Wallace, Charlie Maxwell, James Conca, Ken Cohen, Lauren Steiner, Paul Driessen, Brian McGraw, Tito Hermoso, Emily Cassidy, Mark J. Perry, Mark Levin, Richard Rahn, Robert Bryce, Barry Ritholtz, George "David" Banks, Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Bernard Weinstein, William Shughart II, Gary Wolfram, Steve St. Angelo, Meghan L. O'Sullivan, Peter Z. Grossman, Steve Hilton, and the latest Alex Epstein and Kathleen Hartnett White.


     By Marc J. Rauch
     Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
     THE AUTO CHANNEL



PHOTO
Marc J. Rauch

Over the past few years, I've had the opportunity to read articles and editorials written by a large number of ethanol haters, many of whom are identified as being highly knowledgeable - and even expert - in the energy, business, finance and automotive sectors. Some of these people I have identified above.

However, in each and every case, these people have proven themselves to be devoid of any real knowledge of issues related to ethanol, and in some instances they have proven themselves to be downright stupid because their arguments lack any logic.

When I've come across these articles and editorials I usually respond to them. I post my responses on the websites where the stories were published, I almost always publish my response on TheAutoChannel.com (which then often gets republished on a variety of other websites and printed publications), and I always send the response directly to the persons who authored the pieces I'm responding to. The primary reason for making sure that I send my response to these people is to give them the opportunity to reply to me. Perhaps they aren't as ignorant as they appear to be? Perhaps they will provide me with some information that tilts the axis back towards their side of the argument?

I'm just a simple guy who grew up in Brooklyn; what do I know about farming and fuels and oil exploration and livestock? The livestock I grew up around were dogs, cats, and pigeons. I had no predilection towards or away from anything related to ethanol. I know what I now know, and I believe what I now believe, because I studied the issue and the history...and I then applied some very basic logic to the facts. There's nothing so secretive or elusive or complicated about what I learned that all of the people named above couldn't also learn.

Rarely have I received a reply from the recipients of my critiques, and when I have it is always with a reply that shows they know nothing about the issue. Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute initially tried to diffuse my criticism of his anti-ethanol remarks by suggesting that I read a paper he wrote for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. After reading it and commenting on it the best he could offer was "I don't engage in barroom brawls." I found this peculiar considering that the Cato Institute only engages in barroom brawls. Obviously, he meant he only engages in shadow boxing.

David Shepardson, after butchering the facts related to some difficulties that the Baltimore Police Department had with their General Motors patrol cars (and blaming the problems on too much ethanol), read my response (which included facts gleaned from my conversation with the Baltimore Police and the company that supplies the fuel to the Police Department), disappeared and never sought to correct his story.

Lauren Fix has never responded to my scathing comments of her idiotic anti-ethanol remarks other than to stop submitting stories to my company for publication on TheAutoChannel.com. Wow, she really showed me up.

Robert Bryce's brusque suggestion that I read his book to find answers to two or three questions I asked him in an email gave rise to my 60+ page critique of his book. The best reply he could muster after notifying him that I wrote a review of his book was a short, "thank you." The "thank you," was sent to me less than an hour after I notified him, so I know he hadn't read it yet. If he's read it since, he's never again thanked me and he never responds to anything I send him.

Ken Cohen, from ExxonMobil, never replies, but then how could he? Any response to me would only rub salt on the wounds created by the oil industry.

Mark Levin, whose radio show I often listen to (as I do with other major conservative talk shows), hides behind a false veneer of patriotic conservatism in his lambasting of ethanol. It's impossible to be a patriotic conservative if you support the oil industry, which is completely controlled by foreign regimes. And there's no excuse for it when he repeats the lies concocted by the oil industry. It's one thing for someone to passively not know the truth, but when the person actively disseminates the misinformation, it's reprehensible. The only saving grace for him and the other conservative talk show hosts is that there are an equal number of left-wing talk show hosts and politicians who also espouse lies about ethanol.

Jay Leno has never responded to any criticism over his inexplicable about-face on ethanol that appeared in Autoweek magazine last spring, not to me or anyone else. I guess we'll hear from him when the fuel-treatment sponsor of his TV show fails to renew.

The primary season leading to the 2016 presidential election sprouted a number of anti-ethanol attacks in publications considered to be stalwart defenders of free-market thought, such as National Review, Investor's Business Daily, and Bloomberg. Similarly, there are specious attacks against ethanol on environmental concerns by such pretend defenders of the environment as the Environmental Working Group.

A true ode to stupidity came from Barry Ritholtz, writing for Bloomberg. Barry replied to me, not once but twice. His first reply challenged me on details (which I was only too happy to supply). His second reply feigned confusion by writing that my response wasn't responsive enough, and he sought to impress me by demonstrating his ability to count as high as the number six: Barry submitted six numbered questions. My response to him demonstrated not only my ability to count to six, but to count to the lofty double-digit number fourteen: I sent him back 14 pages of information. I haven't heard back from him since. Either space aliens have abducted him or he's decided that he too should only engage in shadow boxing. Alas, another pro-gasoline nitwit, airhead, bimbo, bimboy has bitten the dust.

In spring of 2017, two of my replies targeted more university professors who are using their academic credentials to disperse false information about ethanol and claim financial bounties offered by the oil industry for those willing to flush their credibility down the toilet for a little bit of money."

In September, my response went into outer space (sort of) as I explained how the support of petroleum oil fuels may be the gateway to parallel universes - there's simply no other way to explain Meghan L. O'Sullivan's comments on ethanol.

Two my most recent rebuttals went to Peter Z. Grossman and then Steve Hilton. Mr. Grossman, a holder of three advanced academic degrees doesn't appear to have the ability to understand ethanol despite his label as an energy expert. And Mr. Hilton was an advisor to the former Prime Minister of England and is currently a regular host of a FOX News television show. His 7-minute attack on ethanol is probably the most preposterous assessment of ethanol that I have ever witnessed.

My latest rebuke deals with two authors and two individual unrelated books with similar titles and fallacious arguments...the proposition that there is a "moral case" to be made for fossil fuels. The authors are Alex Epstein and Kathleen Hartnett White. Both of the authors have been described as energy exerts (Hahahahaha).

So for your amazement, amusement, edification, and ridicule (yes, you can even ridicule me if you think you have the goods to do so), I present some of my most enjoyable online barroom brawls:

The Auto Channel Fights For The Truth About Ethanol

John Stossel Relies on "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" to Knock Alternative Fuels

An Open Letter To Tim Searchinger and All The Other Gasoline Whores

Detroit News Story Goes Overboard in Slamming Ethanol

Biofuels Are Worth Every Effort and Cost

TRUTH ABOUT ETHANOL - Book Review and Reply to Robert Bryce's GUSHER OF LIES

Why Is Jay Leno Misrepresenting Ethanol

Ethanol Honesty Is The Best Energy Policy

Open Letter To Ken Cohen ExxonMobil

Lauren Fix Takes Ethanol Opposition To New Level of Stupidity

Open Letter To Green Car Reports About Ethanol

Open Letter To Mark Levin About Ethanol

Open Letter To Jillian Kay Melchor and National Review

Open Letter To Barry Ritholtz and Bloomberg About Ethanol

Meet The New 'Tool' In Big Oil's Efforts To Scuttle Ethanol

Are Ethanol Opponents Sniffing Glue?

Every Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engine Ever Produced Has Been Damaged By Gasoline

Biofuel Blunder? Renewable Fuel Mandate Is Having A Negative Effect on Home Run Totals

Time To Rethink the Value of PhD

Unmasking The Gas Roots of Contemporary Ethanol Opposition

Unmasking The Gas Roots of Contemporary Ethanol Opposition - Round 2

Open Letter Reply to Fool's Gold Criticism of Ethanol

Existence of Parallel Universes Explain Support of Petroleum Oil Fuels

Three Degrees Still Can't Make Ethanol Slam Stick

Fox News' Revolting Take on Ethanol

The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels