GM Exec - global warming a "total crock of s---,"

No it's not, it's a tax scam

General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2237297620080222?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

 

No mention of Ferrari, though. Wonder what Luca thinks... or whether we'll have a plug-in F430.

 

In my opinion in 2020 we could see no more Ferraris imported here or not like they are today. Why would they import here with markets like China and India rising and the US getting more and more difficult to import to with our ridiculous standards? We may be theyre current biggest market, but with such limited production the cars could go elsewhere.

Im with Lutz, I like what he says a lot of the time, and its pretty funny.

 

+1

 

used to be your company was freer in America. Now Phillip Morris, Altria whatever, is splitting off the overseas company because making tobacco in America is so regulated lawyered and liability producing, the darn overseas part will be the most valuable. IF you think a hundred million Chinese and Indian people are going to give up their legal cigs because the NY Times ran a few years of deamonization articles, well, you do not know much about how the rest of the world thinks. And a great favor our masters in Washington did sending the jobs, plant, income, production and management of this great company overseas.

Most of the ainti-smoking jihad was PR in support of lawyers, and it did pay off handsom. The fees were stupendous. The PR deamonized the product, the lawyers got 50% the State got 50%, smokers paid it all.

China aint going to care about global warming even if their GDP exceeds the US. Global warming is politics, not science and they are not about to sign on to some sort of suicide idea like man should use less energy. Heck they want to use more energy per capata next year and the year after and so on forever. They, like I, would like to think of the era when each person has available enerygy to use that we can only dream of today.

Man that rant felt good.

 

The Roman Empire fell because of overregulation, ie, too many laws.

 

As much as Bob Lutz is a great guy and designed some great cars, what does his expertise have to do with global warming? He is not a scientist.
Even GWB (Global Warming Bush) is starting to treat global warming as a real event. You may not agree with the causes, but you must agree that GW is occurring.

 

Bush is largely capitulating due to political pressure. GW is happening but not for reasons that Al Gore and his gang of left-wing zealots want you to believe. Not only that, historically we're emerging from a period known as the Little Ice Age where it was very cold. So it's not any surprise we're warming. And the warming we're experiencing is nothing like the warm conditions throughout the geologic epochs where the Earth generally was much warmer than it ever was experienced by human beings.

enjoy this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=4499562022478442170
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6026880749850611241

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/

 

EU is raising their standards also That's why.

 

Thanks CharlieHorse hadnt seen those two videos but they were very impressive. There's so much that no one is talking about and everyone has just jumped on this Gore global warming humans are the problem bandwaggon(sp).

 

Sweet!

He's being honest. Only a fool would believe anything a company sales means that the heads of the corp. are actually believers/followers of that trend.

They do what will make them money.

And as far as him not being a scientist......scientists aren't always right. And imo, scientists, especially these days are the ****ing holy grail to everyone. *rolling eyes*They simply don't have correct answers or solutions to our problems. And from what I've read they're now bullies of the scientists who refuse to go along with their agenda.

 

This is a serious question, and while it may mirror the position of someone in the scientific or propoganda community, it is my own words and I have not bothered to find a rebuttal for it...

Is the Earth somewhat self-regulating?

Imagine if the temperature is actually rising due to an increased percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the growing season is extended for any given latitiude. With increased CO2 in the air, more is available for photosynthesis as well. This increased plant growth and annual growth duration it seems would then reduce the amount of CO2, and if it really is the cause of warming, the warming trend would be reduced or stabilize at a new equilibrium point.

Now take the oceans, where there are millions of tons of CO2 dissolved in the water. As you warm the water, its ability to hold gases in suspension is reduced, so by warming you may also release a huge amount into the atmosphere from this source (but also O2). But like on land, algae will have a greater ability to grow in the warmer water, capturing the carbon and releasing more O2.

A warmer Earth also would have smaller polar caps and a slightly higher sea level, reducing the amount of dry land. But this newly flooded land would be very shallow marshes and coastal waters, where in addition to algae you have mats of seaweed and other bottom vegetation able to perform photosynthesis and remove even more carbon.

Where am I wrong?

 

Nicely written. To me anyway.

 

My pleasure.

One giant oversight that often goes without any question is simply this: the Earth's atmosphere is barely composed of CO2 to begin with. It's primarily Nitrogen. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't enough to create a planet-wide warming trend as suggested by Gore-ists even if life depended on it!

Also, pay close attention to the vid where the scientist conducts, with satellites, a full analysis of the mid to upper atmosphere. No such warming trend is detected. It's only near the ground --hardly indicative of the whole atmosphere-- and often in urban centers with lots of smog, concrete, and tall buildings.

 

I would love to a well-financed movie opposing Al Gore's film. I think we are losing our edge as a great country due to higher taxes, budget management, regulation, zealous opponents who think that what they believe is right for everyone else (regardless of how they feel), immigration (we allow all these illegals in without wanting to take any real action; but we have such visa regulations for attracting talented, educational immigrants).

Didn't the president of the Czech Republic say the same thing.

 

As far as I can tell, no where. Nicely written btw.

 

In addition to the question raised in my previous post, I also have a question that perhaps someone could answer, to show me the error in my thinking.

Droughts
A common point made by the environmental alarmists is that global warming or the more general "climate change" may lead to severe droughts in portions of the world. Ontario may have warmer winters while Kansas is a desert and so on. These same people also point out that the warmer ocean leads to more severe typhoons and hurricanes. These two "symptoms" of CC seem inconsistent to me. Some of the hardest rain I have ever witnessed was remnants from a Pacific storm, and I live hundreds of miles from any coast. A warmer Earth will be able to hold more water vapor in the air, and it would stand to reason that more water vapor = more rain, right?

Ocean life ceases as we know it
This is another area where the the alarmists predict ultimate doom for the planet, yet to a layperson like me it has never been explained why they predict this will happen. The predictions I have read are that the "conveyor belt of life" will stop. This is the natural cycle of water which brings nutirents from the cold depths to the surface where it can be used by marine life.

Assume the surface of the water is a little warmer (+5F), while the deep ocean remains near 32F or even below. So how exactly will having an even greater difference in temperature stop this belt? If it is the Delta-T which drives the belt, I cannot see how having a greater one will make it stop.

The ultimate demise of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift are two other tools used to scare us into buying carbon offsets with our plane tickets. But they operate in part by the same mechanism as the CBoL, in this case the difference in water temperature between the equatorial and arctic waters. Whether these are what they are today, or a couple of degrees warmer, the difference in temperature is the same.

If anyone could explain how the above are not valid arguments, I would really appreciate it. I actually took the time to look for a few minutes after reading this thread, but didn't find much online other then the usual dogma.

 

As a physicist, I have trouble buying into the global warming "crisis" as it is currently presented. I am not a climatologist, marine biologist, ecologist; I simply have experience in attempting to understand the basic contributing components of a system. From that respect, I find the Earth and everything that affects the climate far too complex for us to understand with any reasonable certainty. Beyond that, I have doubts regarding the scientific process used to obtain these "results" and predictions. I work with experiments that require millions of very specific data points and control processes and still we have difficulty truly understanding what we are observing, yet in the past 2 years Al Gore has managed to comprehend a system as complex as the Earth? Why should I trust these climate scientists when they still have difficulty predicting the weather two weeks from now? Ever year since Katrina they've asserted that there will be more and larger hurricanes, but those predictions have proven incorrect. Sometimes I think that my fellow scientists feel a burden to save the world, and the weight of that may push them to find a solution and then create the problem.

However, I am 100% in support of developing more efficient energy sources and alternative fuels for political (yes, I'm talking about you, Messrs Chavez and Ahmedinejad) and economical reasons. No need for all these regulations, sanctions, laws, etc.

 

I'm not so sure the "special interests" who control Washington feel the same way. If they did we'd already be on the path to alternative solutions, instead we're being "stuck up" with carbon taxes for a GW problem that is 70% created by the warming rays of the sun. It has even been said that we're now trending to a cooling planet, as witnessed by this year's lower temps and severe winter.

 

I'm not yet 50 years old but I recall quite clearly far more snow as a child, skating on inlets and coves along the connecticut river that are never frozen anymore and various other "indications". But the most dazzling memory is the science discussions in Elementary school that spoke of the mini ice age that we are now just coming out of.

Blah, Blah, Blah....so things change. Eat pork, Don't eat pork. Colesterol is bad, except the good colesterol. What used to be good for you can now kill you and will be good for you again if you wait long enough. Its amazing the human race has survived so long, what with all the dangers we face. Just shut up and deal. Seven card, no peek, nothing wild. Playem as they lie.

 

+1

 

lololol

 

You may like what he says, but do you like the cars he makes? Now that is pretty funny!

 

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Take 1-2 minutes to just glance of this article--it is the best thing I've ever read

Al Gore..America's newest scientist...

 

Or how about this: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289