The study focused on reductions in "greenhouse gases" through the use of ethanol. In all likelihood, the study ignored all the CO2 produced by fossil fuels needed to grow the corn. Of course, I am still unable to think of miniscule amounts of something that is an absolute necessity for all plant life on the planet to be a pollutant, but logic and climate science seem to have never met.
In any case, the role played by the MCGA was covered up by identifying the study as one done by Michigan State University. Indeed, the research was done on the MSU campus, but, since it was paid for by the MCGA, it could have been considered an "industry study".
Potential bias aside, the study is not without its critics. As quoted at the link, Emily Cassidy, a research analyst with the Environmental Working Group, says:
[R]egardless of their funding source, the study holds no merit and wouldn’t hold any more merit even if it was funded by the National Science Foundation.
In a related note via Denninger, junk science rolls on.
And maybe 2014 wasn't the warmest year on record after all.