85 Votes

Do You Agree? GM's Bob Lutz Calls Global Warming "A Crock Of S***" While In Dallas

Agent009 submitted on 2/13/2008 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 12:57:29 PM

234 user comments | Category: New Cars | Source: | SOURCE: frontburner.dmagazine.com

Bob Lutz, General Motors’ vice chairman and chief car guru, says what really turns him on is “doing the unexpected”–acting “contrary to the conventional wisdom, forcing people to re-think their beliefs.

” Maybe that’s why Lutz, who made his name developing behemoths like the V-10 Dodge Viper, is so sold on the fuel-efficient new Chevrolet Volt, which will run on a lithium-ion battery and could go on sale by 2010. “The Volt thrills me because it’s the last thing anybody expected from GM,” the ex-Marine said at a private lunch in Arlington today. If you’re into cars or the car business, jump to read more of Lutz’s contrarian beliefs.

During a closed-door session with several journalists at the Cacharel restaurant, Lutz declared that:

–Hybrid cars like those made by Toyota “make no economic sense,” because their price will never come down, and diesel autos like those touted by Chrysler are also uneconomic. The only place in Europe that diesel-driven cars are big, he said, is where diesel fuel is half the cost of regular gasoline; in most places there, the costs are comparable and diesel has little market penetration.

– Global warming is a “total crock of ****.” Then he added: “I’m a skeptic, not a denier. Having said that, my opinion doesn’t matter. (With the battery-driven Volt), “I’m motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2 (argument).”

Read Article

Do You Agree? GM's Bob Lutz Calls Global Warming

About the Author

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
— Agent009 (View Profile)

User Comments

Lutz speaks the GM party line or, more precisely, the auto industry party line. CO2 allows incoming wavelengths of sunlight to warm the earth but traps some of the longer wave radiation from earth as it tries to escape back into space. Water vapor is a much more abundant greenhouse gas than than CO2. Methane produced by overpopulating humans and the cows they eat (farts) is much more potent than CO2 and water vapor but makes up a small proportion of all the greenhouse gases.

Lutz may be vindicated if global warming produces a lot of humidity in the air and results in blanketing land masses with snow in the winter to the extent that the snow reflects much more heat back into space and triggers an ice age.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 7:27:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

In ways he's right, that hybrids and desiels aren't making a big enough impact to justify their means and that alternate measures should be more researched, but at the moment, there isn't a cost effective or immediate replacement. Cars like the Volt are taking long because lithium battery packs aren't as stable as nickel, but nickel isn't as powerful. Hydrogen makes sense, but that's another skeptical means.

It's not like we can make friction magnetic cars and change all the roads into electron based surfaces overnight... not happening.

Time is what's going to solve the crisis, not the Volt. What a hypocrite though...
— adamsaf723 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 7:54:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Lutz is correct. "Human-caused Global warming" is an absolute crock of ***.

Not only are we in the midst of a declining ice age (which peaked just 12,500 years ago), but just the very stipulation that carbon dioxide is "pollution" to begin with, as recited for political purposes by a handful of radical political organizations like the DNC and the UN, is absolutely ridiculous. Carbon dioxide, like water, is an essential ingredient for life. An "excess" of CO2 should no more be considered "pollution" that an "excess" of raindrops on a showery day! And what year does one even declare to behold the baseline concentration beyond which any additional quantity is "excess"? ?? (see chart below)

The **** that actually does make people sick is crap like sulfur dioxide, nasty free radicals, and industrial particulate. That's the stuff which makes the air wrong, not Carbon Dioxide. AND NOR DOES CO2 have one bit of influence on biodiversity either. Unlike globalwarmingists themselves, who in this century alone have done a monumental amount of damage to the environmental movement. Globalwarmingism is a wretched scourge on this Earth. Globalwarmingists are pathetic. Most of them are totally ignorant of what actually threaten biodiversity: 1) habitat destruction & fragmentation, 2) poaching, and 3) pollution. These are the THREE REAL THREATS to nature. And how many globalwarmingists can actually recite them? Ha, sickeningly little. This is a tragic irony that brings tears to my eyes.

Everyone pay attention: long-term climate cycles are natural, and we have nothing to do with them. Your sacrifice, if any, is meaningless. The next time some brainwashed fruitbag globalwarmingist brings up global warming -- even if just incidentally and inoffensively -- I urge you to STOP and put your hand in the air and demand they immediately declare what is their desired CO2 concentration. Yes, that's right -- have them declare what year on this graph (which I recommend you be able to pull instantly from your wallet) they desire to be THE everlasting, eternal concentration of CO2 on Earth:

http://tinyurl.com/39gnm4

Trust me, your actions may seem curt, but you will be doing them a favor. That's because, before your intervention, they'd essentially been demanding the Earth's climate hold steady in its present conditions, freakishly abandoning its long history –– deep ice ages followed by periods of undulating warmth. Natural cycles which have persisted peacefully on this beautiful planet for all of eternity.
— randy33 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:05:01 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Randy- Please go back to high school and take chemistry. CO2 and H2O are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Scientists are at a virtual consensus that climate change is indeed happening. Disagreeing with it is not an opinion, it is simply ignorant and naive.

Look up IPCC. It is a board supported by just about every environmental scientist in the world. It is happening, wake up.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 2:55:59 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Have you seen the Al Gore film? Do you remember the ice core sample? That very same scientist when interviewed on his own explained how his research has been miss represented. He explained that there is a correlation between earth temperature and CO2, but the CO2 level FOLLOWS the temperature, not CAUSES it.

The real problem that the government's are hiding with the CO2 story is that we are most decidedly running short of oil production capacity and energy efficiency. What do I mean? We can't get it out the ground fast enough to supply everyone and it is taking more and more of the oil to supply the energy to GET the oil out the ground. Once it took 1 barrel of oil to pump 100. Now it takes 1 barrel to pump 5. This means we are in trouble, but they would rather have us cut down cause of CO2 than, hey chaps there ain't enough!
— MadibaP (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 2:09:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Lutz is right. Not too long ago (1975) scientists thought we were headed for a mini ice age. One of their ridiculous solutions was to cover the ice caps with soot so they would melt. Don't believe me? Just google "The Cooling World". It was an article published by Newsweek dated April 28, 1975. Guess we're better off they didn't follow through on that hair-brained idea.

When did humans become so powerful that we could cool and warm the earth at will (nevermind that big ball of fire in the sky or the millions of other things that are out of our control)? I figure the time we can stop an earthquake is about the time we can warm and cool the earth at will.
— Auto_expert (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 12:38:50 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Its surprising to see so many people in complete denial of our involvement. Let me ask you, what is really so crazy about humans changing the earth's climate? Look around you, the land is dominated by concrete and cement, steel and brick. You really think that changes so drastic and otherworldly wouldn't have an effect on this delicate planet?

It's easy to find articles dating back contradicting this or contradicting that, but rarely has a movement of this magnitude been created in vain.

Look at the facts, PPM of CO2 has increased ten fold in almost direct correlation with global fossil fuel emissions. Volcanoes? They release less than 1% of what humans do in CO2 emissions. Do you honestly think that 27 gigatonnes of CO2 a year are not going to change our planet at all?

At this point, dissent is synonymous with denial. Bounce around all you want, the wealth of information supporting human caused climate change is here to stay.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 3:14:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

I must say I'm amazed at the quality of responses to this first comment...usually, discussing "global warming" results in foolish arguments that aren't backed by reason, yet nearly every comment was reasoned and intelligent.

I think the middle ground lies here: "Global Warming" is but one possible outcome. Increasing CO2 won't necessarily increase temperatures. While studies have shown that historically, CO2 levels correspond with higher temperatures, it's also been shown that mini ice-ages began shortly after dramatic increases in CO2 (triggered by volcanic eruptions, which contrary to what was written above, can ABSOLUTELY release more CO2 than mankind).

In short, no one can say for sure what will happen as more and more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. It could result in warming, but it could result in an ice-age too. Therefore, I prefer the term "climate change".

As for mitigating climate change, I'm all for it...provided it doesn't strangle our economy in the short term. I'm all for CO2 trading (providing it's a global system), and I think it's wise to investigate CO2 abatement.

Speaking of the oil industry, not many people realize that oil companies are in the best position to reduce atmospheric CO2. Gas injection is a common practice in oil recovery - if the gas they inject into the ground is CO2, we get oil while permanently storing CO2 away. That's a win-win solution.
— tundrahq (View Profile)

Posted on 2/18/2008 2:59:26 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

My summary of lunch with Lutz:

"Every other auto manufacturer is totally backward. But here at GM, we have always pushed ourselves to make the best automobiles ever just for you, the smartest people on earth."
— johannas (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:17:00 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

Unfortunately I do not agree that GM has "always" produced the best cars. Too many economic tie ups caused issues.

As for Global Warming I believe some aspects Lutz states are true. Humans do play a factor but Mother nature plays a larger part. There has been warming and cooling throughout Earths history. We are simply in a warming period and eventually another Ice age will begin and so on...
— Porschinator (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 9:18:43 PM | | Votes: 1

He absolutely right!
— SevorbeupstryIsBack (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:28:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3

Hmmm, who do I believe, 95% of the scientists out there or a car CEO, who has to answer to shareholders?
— theoptimisticpessimist (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:32:10 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6

You mean the same scientists and researches that get bazillions of dollars from governments pushing this theory? Environmental interests can be just as corrupt as corporate interests.
— cktoo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:13:01 PM | | Votes: 3

No, I mean scientist that risk or have lost their jobs for not supporting the current administrations oil company policy. We all know their is no such thing as a corrupt CEO, Good Lord give me a break.
— theoptimisticpessimist (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:42:21 PM | | Votes: 5

It really doesn't matter what a persons politics are. Most of us are not climate scientists (are there any in this forum?), so we tend to pick sides like we are picking a favorite football team. When the media gets on board, the mind numbed out there jump on too as thoutgh they are now expers on the subject. I do know this, the climate scientists of the world do not count among them, Al Gore. He flies around in private jets, drives, gas hogs and burns over 10K per month in energy bills at his house - then tells the rest of peons that we need to be more green. Ha! How can anyone take him seriously. I read this week that real climate scientists in Canada (a place that would benefit from a little warming) that sunspots are a better indicator of climate change and they are pointing to global cooling... Go team!
— cantaffordone (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:03:41 PM | | Votes: 2

Ckoo is right in that there are groups that benefit from presenting one side of the other- Scientists included- they compete for funding.

I have a litmus test for climatologists that have performed data manipulation. That being if they show the long-term CO2 and Temperature vs. time profile, but keep the two curves separate. Anyone who graphs it this way is trying to sell you something. First, this type of presentation is strange - usually when you try to prove a correlation between two variables you graph them on separate and opposing axes, and modify the axes appropriately until you achieve a curve fit that is acceptable.

By graphing it in that manner, but separating the curves there is a deception that occurs as a result of the fact that there is an extra bit on information that is lost- the temperature curve proceeds the CO2 curve in time- not the other way around. The correlation is then presented as if CO2 causes Temperature increases- which said evidence does not support.

I have heard about the possibility of a systemic lag, but I have seen little evidence or analysis of this. Probably because were it true then something has changed as the current system is not behaving in the same manner- and that is even more difficult to explain.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:37:27 PM | | Votes: 2

The trends I am talking about are those from the Law Dome and Vostok Ice cores.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:38:44 PM | | Votes: 3

"No, I mean scientist that risk or have lost their jobs for not supporting the current administrations oil company policy. We all know their is no such thing as a corrupt CEO, Good Lord give me a break."

Who said anything about there not being corrupt CEO's? Yes, there's corrupt CEO's...as well as corrupt scientists, but that doesn't fit into the media's little storyline. Also, I don't know of anyone who's actually lost their job for "not supporting this admin." Ok, maybe Paul O'Neil. Everyone in the media likes to throw out the NASA guy (forget his name), but he's been able to do/say pretty much whatever he's wanted to do and still has a job even though any administration, as much as we don't like it, is well within their right to change/modify/etc any document being presented on behalf of that admin. Ya think any other prior admin just let things be released without review or changes? Please. Anyway, my point once again, is any interest (corporate, non-profit, science, etc.) can be just as corrupt as anyone else. Follow da money...
— cktoo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 6:00:12 PM | | Votes: 2

To whomever de-boosted me- look it up if you don't believe me.

You know what they teach you at a science and engineering college? Anything less than full disclosure is deception.

You can get the Vostok Ice core raw information online. The lag incidentally is not insignificant: 800 years on average. Currently the some say that a small temperature change causes CO2 to evolve from the oceans and yeild a run-away green-house gas effect- which gains strength 800 years later.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 9:39:08 PM | | Votes: 5

The same Japanese who sell more diesels in Europe then hybrids?
— Heyhuub (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:35:52 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 9

@ JoshLexus4Ever,

spare us.
When someone brings out a mass produced hybrid diesel and/or hybrid bio-diesel (especially on big rigs), then we'll talk.
— Bored (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 7:09:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

this forum has so many anti-hybrid, anti-japanese, musclehead musclecar types, it is difficult to have RATIONAL discourses at times.

hey, i love performance as much as anyone else here. but i also recognize the COSTS involved. i get most of my sporting kicks on a motorcycle, where the fun returns are high, but the adverse effects on BOTH my wallet and the environment are low.

it was estimated a few years back, that if 27% of the national auto fleet were hybrids, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO IMPORT A SINGLE DROP of foreign oil. now, that was before the less efficient "performance hybrids," but STILL, every little bit helps.

people need to disassociate their automotive enthusiasms from their OPINIONS that what they do has no effect on the environment. THEY DO.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:33:30 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

true. toyota says they cut the price of hybrid hardware IN HALF since the 1st prius.

Lutz is nutz.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:51:42 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

I have never believed in global warming, but of course I wasn't born to hold a stick with cardboard attached to it and protest.

EL34 ;-)
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:35:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -7

Not really agreeing with this particular wording. Human produced CO2 output causing the global warming is probably as he says. Global warming itself is real for now, but not sure it will continue or if it is cause by humans and our cars and other things. Too many factors for even the smartest scientists and their data to ever have more than a hypothesis even though they like to call it theory.
— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:35:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

I'm assuming he is a Republican conservative.
— mini22 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:36:09 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Is that a problem? So what if he is?
— lexusis350 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:54:00 PM | | Votes: 1

Well, we can surely bet he's not a feel-good liberal who screams about global warming as he waves to us "little people" while boarding his private jet.
— cktoo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:15:42 PM | | Votes: -1

Unbelievable...he is channeling Michael Scott from "The Office".

Perhaps now that the writer's strike is over, NBC would consider doing a special GM edition of "The Office" where Michael Scott gets recruited away from Dunder Mifflin to run a fictitious car company?
— nybimmer (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:51:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

It is a bunch of crap. It's the Liberal's way of scaring people into doing what they want. Sure, pollution is real, and yes, the climate is getting warmer. But as far as I'm concerned, it's not human related.
— lexusis350 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:51:35 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Yep. We live a "fear state" today in America. We have given up our freedoms for "protection" from the government (ever heard of he Patriot Act?) Fear is a successful political too that leads people to make decisions they would not normally even consider.

You have to watch V for Vendetta. The message of the movie is Brilliant
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:16:25 PM | | Votes: 2

As far as not being human related: nobody knows for sure, which is why Global Warming is still a Theory yet to be proven.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:17:55 PM | | Votes: 1

Dugit,

LOL, IM not, although he had some good ideas. I actually support John McCain just in case you were wondering.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:35:41 PM | | Votes: 1

I might not agree with him on everything (like amnesty for illegals) But like the guy for his calmness and Reagan ideals.

I might have otherwise gone for Hillary (yes I'm an independent) but it doesnt look like she is getting the nomination.

As far as Obama and his love affair with the media who has been giving him favorable coverage and the excitement around him just because of his race (despite the fact he says he looks pat that issue)I would NEVER vote for him. He is so busy being a "different" candidate and promising all this change for America and creating this movement that he hasnt outlined any of his ideas yet. His background doesnt convince me either.

— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:43:11 PM | | Votes: 2

w209..."As far as not being human related: nobody knows for sure, which is why Global Warming is still a Theory yet to be proven."

Almost all of science is based on THEORIES. The theory of relativity, theory of evolution, big bang theory. There are actually very few FACTS (LAWS) in Science. What makes a good theory is one with evidence, evidence that is documented, peer reviewed, and repeatable. All of which makes the theory of global warming (including human contribution to it) a good theory, one that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Claiming that global warming is likely bogus because it is a theory only speaks to your complete lack of knowledge in this area.
— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:54:32 PM | | Votes: 2

1970Toyomark

"Claiming that global warming is likely bogus because it is a theory only speaks to your complete lack of knowledge in this area"

And I suppose that you have extensive knowledge on the subject? I never said it was bogus, I said that since it was a theory it deserves the benefit of the doubt, and shouldnt be considered a fact. But go ahead, enlighten me, and all of us in this forum with your credentials and knowledge in the field.

We await your response...
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 4:47:43 PM | | Votes: 0

My response is simple. I do not have to be an authority on the Science of Global Warming to know the validity of the theory, because almost every scientist, with their vast research, already agrees on it. And I'm not going to spend one second researching all the data out there for the narrow minded folks on this site. (not speaking to everyone, natch)

Now, you obviosuly did not read my response to you. What I claimed is something that you do not need to be a scientist to know, and that is that in Science there are very few laws and many, many theories. You contended that because Global Warming is only a theory, it is therefore questionable. That is the faulty logic that points to your ignorance on the subject of science in general.

"Conservative estimates indicate that there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe."
Powell, Michael (2004). Stuff You Should Have Learned at School

Science is made up of theories. Good ones stand the test of time, as the theory of Global Warming has, the evidence and acceptance becoming stronger each year.
— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 5:53:45 PM | | Votes: -1

"...Science is made up of theories. Good ones stand the test of time, as the theory of Global Warming has, the evidence and acceptance becoming stronger each year."

You're kidding, right? The Theory of GW (man-made) has been around at best 15-20 years and before that it was the Theory of Global Cooling that was being trumpeted. And actually, the evidence and acceptance is becoming increasingly challenged, by even those that bought into GW at first. Then again you probably won't hear that on NBC...uhm, does GE ring a bell.
— cktoo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 6:10:26 PM | | Votes: 3

Wow. I thought this was a CAR website
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:04:58 PM | | Votes: -1

GLOBAL WARMING THEORY = Just that, a Theory

During the Middle Ages the Earth experienced a sharp rise in temperatures, these lasted a few centuries and then receeded. The planet goes through temprature cycles and we may just be going through one of those now
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:55:41 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

Any basic research on the medieval global warming period blows holes in the theory that we are just currently in the midst of the regular ups and downs of the earth's temperature. What we are going through now with golbal warming is unprecedented, rapid, and potentially deadly.

The rise in temperature during the middle ages was isolated mainly to Europe, was short-lived, and was not nearly as extreme as that which we are currently facing.

Any media, corporation, scientist or govt oficial still using the medieval warming as a counterpoint to global warming is outright lying.
— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:46:32 PM | | Votes: -1

1970Toyomarc

Again, you say that Medieval warming was isolated to Europe but how do we know as a fact? The knowledge, equipment, or technology did not exist then to make a clear corralation to what is happening today. Since there was no industry, powerplants, cars, or fumes going into the atmosphere we can safely assume it wasnt caused by man.

Although IT MAY be true that man may be accelerating this process or causing it, We still have plenty of research and discoveries ahead of us to prove Global Warming. Heck, scientists cant even explain the existence of the hole in the ozone layer at the poles or even why it expands and contracts regularly.

Dont be so quick to jump on the Global Warming Bandwagon with everyone else.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 4:55:14 PM | | Votes: 0

Re: Medieval warming, scientists studying ice samples, coral, trees, and other data can get rough estimates of climate going back hundreds, even thousands of years in different parts of the world. The data is there, look it up, instead of just repeating what Rush, Glenn, and Bill spew out. And again, these do not have to be hard facts or universal truths in order to be good science. They have to be accepted by the scientific community as solid data supporting an accepted hypothesis.

Where do you come up woith scientists being unable to explain the ozone layer hole? In fact there is general consensus on what has caused the depletion of the ozone layer. Since mitigating efforts over the past 2 decades have been enacted the ozone layer has rebounded somewhat. You holding out on some info there? Please share.
— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 6:06:32 PM | | Votes: -1

Lets hope Obama has an asnwer to these questions for once when he stops promising and criticizing the candidates who offer solutions. Im still waiting to hear his.

Barack Obama = Stupid people, Anyone can promise change, just look at Chavez and other dictators. They promised change and the ignorant went along with it.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 9:45:47 AM | | Votes: -2

Well, we contribute to it as the human race. However, global warming naturally occurs anyway, regardless of how much we try to prevent it.
— Czelinski (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:57:13 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Yes, but we know that the globe is warming up at a faster rate than the Earth has ever experienced and there is hard evidence that it is directly related to humans.
— _43LE (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 10:08:41 PM | | Votes: 1

since the start of the industrial revolution, man has burned --with greater and LESSER efficiency-- MILLIONS OF TONS of fossil fuels.

how can all that UNnatural addition of co2 emissions NOT HAVE HAD and effect? anyone that believes it hasn't is a blind fool, believing only what he WANTS to believe so he can continue to indulge his selfish desires for modern toys and conveniences.

if not for the carbon sinks nature provides, the effects would've started to kick in even sooner. but the sinks themselves are full, and even being depleted (woodlands, etc.)

man has NO EFFECT on mother earth? yeah, sure. that hasn't been true since adam and eve got evicted.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:05:10 AM | | Votes: 2

did anyone think that it might be because there are more people and cows in the world than ever before so we are all producing more CO2 because we are all burping and farting more
— ILikeLambo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:45:37 AM | | Votes: 2

He's not the first to say this.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 1:59:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Yep, it is a crock.

This earth will be in existance far longer then we will. Whatever we do to it will be long remedied after us being gone for a couple hundred thousand years.
— Obliv (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:18:19 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

The earth sure will fix itself, but the other point of your post is correct as well, it will be after we are gone from the face of it. So why not just speed up our exit, lke we've been doing the past 100 years.
— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:49:13 PM | | Votes: 2

I don't think the environmental problem we have will be directly related to temperature, I think it will be the more unstable weather patterns. Call it what you want. I think it is best stated as pollution. IMO, the world’s weather is less stable as of late. Not to be in agreement or disagreement of the theory of global warming but...
— Shredmo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:20:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Several times I mention that it is my opinion. None of it is fact, except for yesterday's weather. I base that off of the recorded stats, not by watching weather channel re-runs :)

To condense what I said previously, pollution is bad. Not sure about global warming being fact or fiction. If man is having an impact on the climate, extreme weather (cold and hot in the same year) will be (in my opinion) a bigger issue than the temp rising on average of a degree or so over ~20 years.
— Shredmo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 4:38:30 PM | | Votes: 2

The response on this article here contrasts very differently from the autobloggreen forum (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/13/gms-bob-lutz-global-warming-is-a-total-crock-of-sh-t/) (I’ll save you from reading it – they all bash Lutz).

Since it seems to takes so long for the environment/climate to respond to man’s global effects, if at all (measured in tens of years), if indeed we are the cause of global warming, we are probably already screwed. Ten or twenty years of driving Prii (plural of Prius?) aren’t going to fix things in time. Maybe this is what Lutz meant to say? But he is correct in that we need to get away from foreign oil. Is it worth drilling for oil in the U.S.’ backyard (Gulf of Mexico, Alaskan coast) to get away from Chavez and OPEC?
— hybridfarce (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:21:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

Interesting...1st off he should con't to talk about why GM lost billions of dollars($11 Billion previous years and now $39 Billion in 2007 and how it resulted to GM becoming part of a very poor equation developed by GM execs including "No Clue" Lutz. While he con't to lay people off, ruin other people's lives, shut factories down, and trying to revive the whole GM line by desperately re-badging vehicles from Europe(so what's new?) And now the Malibu is the greatest thing since slice bread(it's a rebage Saturn Aura & Opel, just wearing a different tie)...supposedly and now trying to say their Chev Volt is another great deal since slice bread. Where is the track record to even prove this and say other auto brand's level of innovation is useless? What he does not realize is that the "Crock of Shit" is what comes out of his mouth(it's what his shareholders "WANT TO HEAR!!!") and who he really is at the end of day...is Bobby Boy "No Clue" Lutz is the greatest pile of shit you can ever meet in the auto industry. Don't get me wrong...he is a smart guy, but he is just as stupid too. Good luck GM...you will need every bit of it, for the next 50 years!!!
— BigShow50 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:25:30 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

at this rate, in 50 years either there WILL BE NO Gummy Motors; or, it will have been substantially downsized. like ford is in the process of doing.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:21:14 AM | | Votes: 1

Most conservative republican's do believe that global warming is bullshit.If your a car guy where most of your profit used to come in the way of big SUV's and Trucks your pissed off at the higher fuel economy standards and pissed off at the Democrats for talking about greenhouse gases in the first place. Lets face it concerns about environment are everything that big business republicans are against. We don't have a pollution problems,the seas will not rise and cover our low lying areas due to the melting of the polar icepacks,we don't have to worry about foreign oil because will just bomb the shit out of those Iranians and take it for ourselves. Then we can go back to building those big SUV's and Trucks again and GM will start making the profit they feel they deserve.There is no problem at all.Mccain will win and with our permanent military presence in the gulf region oil will be plentiful. Those Europeans better get off this environmental crap too and start speaking english.
— mini22 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 2:47:54 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

"I’m motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2."

as long as he's on board to increase efficiency, i don't care about his motives.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:02:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

there are great benefits for lefties and righties to both want more efficient cars.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:03:27 PM | | Votes: 5

Couldnt agree more
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:24:49 PM | | Votes: 5

Glad to see Lutz has the balls to speak it.

"Man made global warming" is nothing other than a power grab by lefty loons.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 3:28:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4

So many posters on this site are so backward in their thinking. Between the ranting about Chavez, the hatred of hybrids, the distrust of the EPA and other mpg and emissions standards, it is so obvious that anything in this world that keeps you from your god-given right to do whatever you please, with no regard to anything or anyone else is a communist, godless, devil-inspired, world government plot.

Global Warming is real. Humans and our factories and cars are partly to blame. Our destruction of forests is also to blame.

Global Warming is a theory, but the FACT is, global warming WILL cause you to sacrifice, and to Auto fans the most visible sacrifice will be in the form of the automobile. This sacrifice scares you. I understand. So the easiest way to deny the fact of what is happening (your sacrifice) is just to debunk the theory, no matter how scientifically sound it is. To deny the theory means you can continue to use up Earth's vital resources, spew as much pollution into the air and water as you like, and pay no mind to the consequences. Because, hey, what we do has no effect on anything or anyone else, right?
— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 4:08:26 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Nobody is scared here. I cant wait until performance electric cars become priced like average cars. It will save me a ton of $$$ and rid America of its dependence on oil. Who could ask for more? I think this is the direction in which we are heading slowly but surely.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 5:23:24 PM | | Votes: 5

Well said 1970.

Earth! Fire! Wind! Water! Heart! GOOOO PLANET!
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:25:10 PM | | Votes: 1

Spare us with the religious bullshit. The bible says a lot of things, many of which are wrong! but people fail to bring those us. The sun isnt scorching the Earth anytime soon.

The Earth has always had a share of good people, and bad people. I dont believe people are becoming more wicked. I believe people are becoming more capable of thinking for themselves by asking questions and challenging archaic religious propaganda

Sitting around repenting isnt going to do ANYTHING for us. Jesus provides those who dont want to take action with canned theories which dont let us ask questions. Suit yourself.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 5:04:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

MidEngine, your religious sentiment is appreciated. But if you believe in the Lord and the Bible as it is written, you know the prognistications cannot be changed.

If indeed as you suggest The Book Of Revelation backs up the notions of man made global warming, then it proves the fact that all the hybrids, electric vehicles, stamping out of capitalist freedoms, and elimination of greenhouse gases isn't going to stop it from happening.

It is so easy for the arrogant Illuminati that foist this Global Warming bologna upon us to overlook or ignore for their own agenda, the fact that we once had an Ice Age that has over millions of years as the scientists say, been dissolving.

The glaciers that once existed have long melted before man ever started romping around in Chevy Tahoes. The earth has been warming since the beginning of time, even before recorded time.
— SteedPub (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 5:29:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

OMG. This is why I ask myself everyday what I am doing on this site. I need to go back to just reading the great articles (thank you 001 and even 009) and stay away from the forums. Wow.
— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 6:10:41 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

^Apparently they Blocked out and removed MidEngine^

My comment was directed to his prophetic comment on "repenting to save ourselves"
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 9:48:48 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

You are correct midengine is history.. too many warnings and not enough respect to others.
— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:03:17 PM | | Votes: 3

LOL! for a while, he was BORING with his repeated cut and pastes about how japanese cars were SO INFERIOR 'cuz japan never produced as many Nobel laureates as western countries.

he actually was starting to get INTERESTING (if only by making a further fool of himself). ah, well.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 5:03:05 AM | | Votes: 1

Yeah, just like how we landed on the moon.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:26:12 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

He is correct. Global warming might be happening but, cars are not the major cause. The world would be getting warmer even if we were not here.
— craigz (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 5:39:41 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Who the hell cares Lutz thinks, its just one old mans opinion who designs cars. And I believe global warming exists but its not our place to try and figure out who's lying or telling the truth, these days everybody has their own agenda whether they know it or not. Just try to do your part to make this world a better place whatever that may be... especially if you're responsible for children. The End.
— PlanB (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 5:43:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 7

Spot on.

Global warming is a genius plan to force every person on earth to replace all their possessions with more expensive stuff. Does anyone really think that a scientist paid a multi-million dollar grant by Toyota to write a paper on global warming is going to be unbiased? Gimme a break.
— supermoto (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 5:48:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

yeah, and can you NAME that particular scientist?

otoh, it has been documented that some of the Big Oilys DID offer $10,000 each to scientists who wrote papers debunking GW.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:35:39 AM | | Votes: 5

While I don't agree with Lutz, the enviro-nazis need to lay off or they'll be more layoffs.
— g2ok (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 6:23:41 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

g2ok, you don't think that automakers can ever manufacture clean automobiles? I happen to believe that there is more profit in a clean car than in a dirty one, and it will employ more people. The technology doesn't matter, results do. Let's just use diesel for an example. It takes a few more engineers to reduce the emissions from the oil burner. Price of the clean diesel fuel and car are higher, too. But, surprise, more people prefer to avoid diesel smoke and wouldn't even consider the crude ones that were attempted to be sold in the USA 10+ years ago. Economic opportunity and environmental responsibility are one and the same thing -- unless you're the type of businessman who likes to piss in his own well to save himself the effort of walking further to the latrine.

As for the GW discussion:
I don't care what Lutz or any other oil or auto executive has to say about global warming. It is real, and it is largely caused by man's influence on nature. If you are too lazy to do the research yourself, it doesn't make you correct. Short-term thinking and narrow-minded dogma has gotten the economy and the ecology into a poor condition, but still we have ignorant people who think that nothing they do has a negative effect on anyone else. Please spare the few intelligent people here the agony of reading your self-centered drivel.

oh, and as for political bent: I read the voting records of each of the candidates. did you? it turns out the the old fogies running for office are neither as wise nor as effective as they portray themselves to be...
— moto (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 6:08:19 PM | | Votes: 2

i dont care about global warming if it means no more supercars.....
— iamdabest1 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 6:47:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4

I can't blame Lutz for protecting his PERSONAL bottom line because if GM's Board of Directors dismiss him, he'll earn an 8-9 figure compensation package.

That aside, he's a f*cking moron. People like him have held their company back from keeping up in their industry and bringing forth innovations.
— Bored (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 7:14:26 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

Last time they said greenhouse will lead to global cooling. Now it will lead to global warming - Well we are in a warming trend because last I checked the Great Lakes were covered by glaciers and now there are no glaciers on the Great Lakes. I don't recall T-Rex or the Wooly Mammoth driving a Hummer or a big rig diesel truck that caused global warming. Maybe they belched and farted a ton of methane. A major eruption from a volcano can release more global warming causing crap than ever. Al Gore makes it appear the the coastal areas are going to sink under water overnight or global warming is going to blind side this planet - this planet is on a warming trend and has been since the friggin' glaciers began to recede and was caused by what - Megalosaurus driving a Dodge Ram?
— krackerhatesme (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 8:17:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3

So you believe everything Al Gore says about Global Warming?
— Porschinator (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 9:21:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

i just picked up the book version of Gore's movie. anyone who THINKS what he said is not true, AND HAS THE BALLS to back up this opinion with REAL research and possible refutation, should pick up the book.

ALL his statements are backed up. the book has footnotes and references not possible in a movie format.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:43:05 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

gOoB, DID you read my above post correctly?

i was BACKING what gore said in his movie and book.

i was referring to the GW deniers, as not having the BALLS to RESEARCH facts that would PROVE they're wrong.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 4:50:05 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Obama,

You must be one of the most verbally abusive and intolerant people I have seen on this board.

As a result, please save yourself the ever bothering to communicate with me here.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 10:09:38 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

It must be my typing. That should read:

"please save yourself the effort of ever bothering to communicate with me here."

Thank you.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 10:15:43 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Funny how you call him an idiot and a sore loser when Bob Lutz is more than you will ever become. Think about it. Your'e a nobody.
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 10:16:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

GoObama08, is Barack gonna put you thru school for free and then give you free healthcare so you can clean up the planet for free?

lol
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 11:11:03 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6

xdrive-

you've bought into the GOPpie PROPAGANDA that our taxes are high. we have one of the LOWEST RATES of taxation of all the industrialized nations.

yet we LACK the basic services all the other advanced countries provide to ALL citizens.

why is this? because in the american "redistribution of wealth" model, HUGE trainloads of tax revenues are FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET on stupid wars and the whole infrastructure supporting wars.

consider: more than ONE-HALF of the federal budget goes to the DoD and related expenses. which, with the current administration, ALSO HELPS BREED whole new generations of int'l terrorists.

remember how cheney PROMISED "perpetual war?" to some that was a threat. to all his buddies in the death industries, that was A PROMISE of continued profits!

then, there is the whole idiotic Drug Wars. which again, supports a whole class of parasites in the DEA, prison industrial complex, etc. etc.

one could say we DO pay too much taxes. to support STUPIDITY! goobama is right. and RIGHTFULLY PISSED.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 4:40:18 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

Sadly, GoObama08 represents the typical Obama worshiper. Intolerant, vapid, misinformed and ignorant. Only someone so lacking in reason could fall for the empty rhetoric being spewed by Obama. What is it that attracts people like Goob to Obama? His support of racial quotas? His call for higher taxes? His plan to enact global warming based restrictions that will have negligible affects on the global temperature at best while dramatically hampering the US economy? His plan to declare defeat and retreat from a war in Iraq that we're clearly winning? His plans for a massive increase in gov't spending to support new entitlement programs? His plan for a universal healthcare plan run by the same gov't that runs our pathetic public educational system? His support of driver's licenses for illegal aliens? His plan to give amnesty to millions upon millions of illegal aliens? Is it that you support his membership in an "afro-centric" church that preaches racist thought? Or is it that you know nothing of the issues or the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility the US was founded on and have fallen for Obama's superficial charisma and his childlike and absurdly cliche message of "change" and "hope"?
— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 2/13/2008 11:13:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

Stop giving democrats a bad name. You sound like a lunatic
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:31:41 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

I am unsure of the derivation of the Democrats' philosophy of government.

Let me give you an example, as a classical / true liberal (Not to be confused with the bastardized journalistic sense of the word) iot is relatively easy for me to follow the arc of philosophic thought that has generated modern liberal thinking. I'll give you and example in rough chrolological order:

Aristotle, Descartes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman.

There are others, of course, particularly during the elightmenment such as Helvetius. Helvetius in one way was the predecessor of Rand.

So far as the Democrats go, I can see Keynes and perhaps Hobbes, other than that I don't know, which is why I am asking.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:26:51 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

HA! I forgot to go back and write the introduction! I would like to ask you to illuminate me on this subject, as you are the only person I can imagine that might know. I have friends who are progressive, but they are not so...hardcore.

The question is: what are the philosophic origins of the Democrats perception of government (or life for that matter. I an imagine a few, but they are difficult for me to connect through time.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:33:46 AM | | Votes: 3

Um...You do realize, hopefully, that when I say true liberal I mean in the classic sense- Ronald Reagan was a true liberal. The word was hi-jacked by progressives in the 20's.

In fact a New York times article critisized the progressives for "the expropriation of the time-honored word 'liberal'" and stated that "the Radical Red school of thought...hand back the word 'liberal' to its original owners" in the 1920's.

Now it is probably true to some extent that there is overlap between my list and yours, but I would bet money, that such would not occur in the 20th century.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:51:35 AM | | Votes: 2

My problem is this: I don't know what the Democrats actually believe, I know what they say, but I don't mean anything as shallow as their opinion on taxation, but the fundamental philosophical origin of what they believe.

For all I know there isn't one- that's why I am asking.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:56:54 AM | | Votes: 2

...You, my dear, have been lied to. Thank you idiotic media.

I quote: "Liberalism means something quite different to economic and political theory.Liberalism in economics refers to to a belief in capitalismand its ephasis on profit, private property, and a free, self-regulating market. In political theory, liberalism mean a belief in individul equality, indiviual liberty, participatory democracy, and limited government. Both of these definitions represent classical liberalism. Former president Ronald Reagan...,both convevatives in the journalistic sense, are classical or true liberals."

-International Organizations: perspectives on Governance in the Twenty-First Century. 2nd edition. Kelly-Kate S. Pease.

"For Americans, the global battle between state and market can be puzzling, for it appears to pit 'liberalism' against 'liberalism'. In the United States, Liberalism means the embraceof activist, interventionist, government, expanding its involvement and responsibility in teh economy. IN the rest of the world, liberalism means almost the exact opposite- what an American liberal, would in fact, describe as conservativism. This kind of liveralism supports a reduced role for the state, the maximization of individual liberty, economic freedom and reliance on the market, and decentralized decision makign. It has its intellcual roots in John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. It empasizes the importance of property rights and sees government's role as the facilitation and adjudication of civil society."

-The Commanding Heights, Daniel Yergen and Joseph Stanislaw.

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Grotesque isn't it- the Orwellian maniplation of language?
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:53:32 AM | | Votes: 4

This is why Obama of all people as I recall, suggested the return to the word "progressive".

Democrats aren't really liberals- that's a lie. Because it has existed for a long time doesn't make it any less of a lie either.

Granted, to call George Bush the younger a 'liberal' is right either.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 2:11:25 AM | | Votes: 3

You my dear obviously don't know much about economics and I hate to tell you this - Keynesianism is deal for now.

The single most government hating instiution on this earth, the Chicago School of Economics has won more nobel prizes than any other institution in a single category. 43% of ALL Nobel Prizes ever awarded in economics have gone to either the faculty or graduates of the Chicago School. In fact in the list I gave you both F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman have won the award.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 2:16:45 AM | | Votes: 2

cdoke is right...or correct rather. "classical liberalism" embodies minimal restrictions on individuals rights. this, in some demented way is refered to conservativism in the united states. it's a disgrace to the english language.

if you look at the definition of liberal and conservative, you will see that liberal fits republicans while conservative fits democrats (in general). i was just reading about this the other day.

"liberals" would better be referred to as socialists, as they are in europe.

i think american "liberals" ditched the conservative tag some time after the great depression...made them sound too unwilling to adapt, perhaps.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 10:19:54 AM | | Votes: 4

the thing is, it was the CONSERVATIVES and the modern robber baron class who have CORRUPTED the word "liberals" and liberalism in america.

they've made liberal into a dirty word, when anyone who looks up the dictionary definition of liberal would ask, "This is BAD???" [the way conservatives label people "liberals"]

the robber baron types DO like the classical use of liberal. to them, it means minimal gov't interference in their RAPACIOUS PRACTICES.

part of the role of gov't, is protection of citizens and leveling the playing field. the GOPpie corrupters of language use a classically liberal political philosophy, to PROTECT them from gov't REGULATIONS. and TILT the playing field to favor big biz, at the expense of everyone else.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 4:25:35 AM | | Votes: -3

Goob,
Enforcing an emissions tax on American businesses will not reduce global warming. But it will cost the US economy billions in revenue that could otherwise be invested in improving efficiency to make US businesses more competitive with those in places like China where a new coal-fired power plant is built every week. Secondly, we're all for reducing dependency on foreign oil. Only problem is, liberals won't allow the building of clean, nuclear power plants that could go a long way in reducing oil consumption. The problem is, people like yourself and Obama would rather make symbolic gestures that do nothing to reduce global warming—carbon credits, etc.—but instead harm the economy.
Regarding Iraq, whether or not you agree with going to war, to suggest that we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and now retreat is not only misquided, it's immoral. To do so would leave millions vulnerable to revenge-fueled genocide. As for the safety issue, we were attacked by al qaeda 5 times before we went into Iraq. We haven't been attacked since. Lastly, as to your comment about the "vast majority of peope on this planet" hating the USA, perhaps they should be more concerned with massive human rights violations in China and the rise of totalitarian political oppression in Russia and the looming socialism caused disaster in Venezuela— to name but a few of the countries around the world committing crimes against humanity. To make US policy based on global opinion is extremely foolish and self-destructive.
— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:27:09 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

please enough of this OBAMA garbage. he is nothing special. god forbid he wins the election. united states does not need a muslim president.

hes not black, hes a muslim terrorist. new york city was dumb and once allowed a black man to run the city, David dinkins. worst thing ever to happen to new york.
a muslim black man cannot and should not run the United States.
— iamdabest1 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:30:07 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

all politicians are full of crap, a black muslim, that much worse.......
— iamdabest1 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:36:08 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

The clutz don't believe in hiring engineers. This day and age, ppl are smarter and don't believe the hype.

It's inevitable! spend the money to improve at all front. Be super efficient you clutz; lazy bastard.
— Chaos29 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:22:25 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

"You wanna know what is hampering our economy? That stupid Iraq war which will end up costing Trillions."

RIght, but the 60% of the US budget spent on entitlement programs paid for with high taxes is great for the economy. So great in fact, that Obama aims to increase it to 70%.

"Obama wants to put a system in place that would reduce CO2 pollution by 80% before 2050."

Sure, by punitively taxing American businesses. Meanwhile, Chinese businesses will face no such restrictions making it even more difficult for American companies to compete resulting in lost jobs. That will be great for the economy, won't it Goob? Worse yet, it won't do anything to decrease global warming. Diminished solar activity will though.

"And if we want Chine to stop building 2 new coal powered electric plants a week then we have to be the nation that sets an example, develop cheap green energy. Then all other nations like China will follow."

Alternative energy is a great and necessary thing, but unless all nations, including China and India are part of an emissions limiting pact, it will cause place handcuffs on the US economy while allowing the world's largest polluter, China, to go on polluting while surpassing the US economy.

"The thing is, if we really wanted to, we could power the whole USA on cheap green energy right now. And if we invested some money and developed that technology, made it even cheaper, then all the developing countries in the world would adapt it as well, because it would be cheaper, not just cleaner, then coal powered plants."

Right, and we'll harness the power of rainbows to power the world. You're a very naive young man with a lot to learn. A Manhattan project like effort to create a viable, inexpensive, plentiful alt. energy source is great, but you don't hamstring American businesses before it exists. That's a recipe for economic disaster.

"We haven't been attacked by Al Qaeda since 2001? Dude, they attack us over there like every hour."

Yes, but decreasingly so, and ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE. Not embassies and New York office buildings. If you can't see the difference you're more delusional than I thought.

"And at least Obama will go after Bin Laden in Pakistan- the real safe heaven for Al Qaeda."

Ah, I see. Bush is a "warmonger" when he employs military action, but not Obama? What happened to unlimited "diplomacy" and making sure the rest of the world likes us? You're hypocrisy is typical of your kind and quite pathetic.

"ps. a Bush supporter should not be saying anything about human rights violations in Russia, China or anywhere else. Bush started a war based on lies, tortured people, put people in secret prisons without a court- like what Stalin did. Bush has ignored pretty much every geneva convention or US constitutional law there is. If america wants other countries to obbey laws, then america should do the same."

Wow. There's a big difference between detaining Islamic terrorists and your own citizens
— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:58:26 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

from the posts after the article linked above, a certain Hameiri wrote:

“What do you mean by “study”? I think I’ve studied global warming, taken some ecology classes, and watched the environmentalists for more than 40 years, and I can’t tell you that.”

this is so typical of consevatives who THINK they know about ecology and GW. i had to reply as follows:

you “think” you’ve studied??? you are exactly right, because apparently you learned NOTHING.

if you don’t believe global warming IS happening, go up to arctic regions, or down to antarctica. glaciers are melting at record rates. the summer ice pack over the Arctic Ocean gets smaller every year.

and guess what? this process will only ACCELERATE due to the albedo effect. further boosted by the rapidly thawing tundra releasing ever more METHANE and co2.

what happens to the REST of the planet when high latitude regions lose ice/snow cover and glaciers? just imagine enduring next summer with NO air conditioning.

the arctic regions are the a/c for THE WHOLE PLANET.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 2:02:15 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

incidentally, i LIVE in the subarctic.

and less than 15 miles from one of the planet’s premier research institutes on global warming and the geosciences in general: the Univ of Alaska’s Geophysical Institute. which also happens to have direct access to one of the major supercomputer centers in the country too (ARSC).

there ARE a few people even up here, who also don’t believe that HUMANS have contributed to global warming. all BOTH of ‘em that i know are way past 60 years of age.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 2:05:24 AM | | Votes: 1

XYZZ,
You're failing to make a distinction between global warming and anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. No one is arguing that the northern hemisphere has experienced a warming trend in the last 30 years. There is, however, widespread disagreement and skepticism that this warming is cause by human activities, in which case imposing draconian carbon limits is pointless. There are very accomplished scientists who believe that global temperatures are far more succeptible to changes in solar output than to C02 ( which constitutes a very small % of greenhouse gas). Programs such as those leftist like Obama wish to impliment will have no effect on global temps but will cost untold billions of dollars.
— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 2:25:11 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

GoObama08,
I realize you're young, naive and have grown up getting your news from MTV, but I suggest you educate yourself with a more accurate view of political history. Let me begin your education by correcting you on a few of your misconceptions.

"I ment a true liberal, like JFK."

Sorry to break it to you, but JFK wasn't a liberal in the modern sense. Unlike today's socialism-embracing libs, JFK lowered taxes and was tough on national defense.

"And what's with you right wing freaks and taxation? Wow the talking heads in right wing media really have you brainwashed. So the rich people should get huge tax breaks? Even during a time of war????? WHAT???? "

What is it that makes you think the gov't is entitled to any more of our labor than they already receive? Low taxes encourage economic growth and personal investment. And what's with the class warfare? Whether or not you're "rich" shouldn't mean you should have a greater percentage of your income confiscated by the gov't or that you're any more responsible for supporting the gov't as a matter of percentage than anyone else. Individual liberty and personal responsibility are inextricably linked. You can't have liberty without showing responsibility. Absolve people of their responsibility with gov't bailouts and you also must give up your individual liberty in the form of increased increased confiscation of personal income and labor to the gov't.

"And we should give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas instead of free health care to sick children???? WHAT????"

"Free health care" isn't free at all. It costs billions in increased taxation. If we enforced immigration laws medical insurance would cost less and there would be fewer uninsured.

"I know what the democrats stand for."

And what would that be? "Hope" and "Change" don't count.

"But I have no clue what the republicans stand for."

In short, individual liberty and personal responsibility.

"The republicans in my eyes are dictators- evil empire that is destroying our society"

Then clearly you have no idea what a dictator is or you're too biased and intellectually dishonest to see the why you're wrong.
— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 2:55:31 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

Bush a dictator? hahahahaha whata good one. You are so ignorant of the American Political process. Senate? House of Representatives? Voting, vetoing, Congressional power to undo a veto?

Youre an idiot. Just like Obama himself
— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 10:00:13 AM | | Votes: 4

You must respect history. Religion/personal belief is a major cause of wars between nations, peoples, etc. Another major cause is the decline of society once it has achieved superpower (measured in many ways) after it has achieved superpower status. Rome succumbed to moral decay, outsourced military, etc. (sounds familiar?). If the US or other major world power becomes complacent in their defense (I don’t think the Iraq war counts as defense, but history will tell us later), they will fall! Name me one superpower that became that way completely due to peaceful actions! US? UK? Germany? Russia? China?

Where is Franklin Delano Roosevelt when you need him? Obama is clearly no FDR. There is a huge difference between a Democrat and a Liberal.
— hybridfarce (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 8:45:12 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

It makes sense that Lutz would say that. Given GM's current product offerings and state of technology, it is of paramount importance that Lutz get as many people as possible to believe that global warming is a crock. The last thing GM can afford is to have a steeper decline in big vehicle sales.

I don't have a strong opinion either way about whether global warming is due to man (I lean more towards disbelief), but I am fairly certain that a) Lutz has no idea what he's talking about, and b) he would still say that even if he belived otherwise.
— sold2early (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 8:50:56 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

moderates ftw. we're the kind of people that don't support the Iraq war and at the same we don't give in on global warming.
— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 9:25:07 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

By all your comments it is easy to see where you stand on the issues of current affairs, polution, history, racism and other forms of discremination. But one thing is clear, there is a lot of pent-up anger in this country on so many issues. So,Register to vote, read up on your congressmen and women and those running for president.....and then VOTE. That's what you do when you are not happy with the system. If your vote does not work, then run for an elected position and make a difference. All those people who run for election are making history whether they win or not, we here on the other hand are making this blogger (Autospies) richer, by logging on and bullying each other on politics instead of talking about what Bob Lutz said.
— BFABS (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 10:39:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

Well, ignoring the scientific proofs, the temperature has been decreasing lately, and the weather is actually getting colder in winter over here in the UAE, and the middle east in general. Also, how did the ice age end? Not human impact is it?
— M53R (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:02:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

That is why it is called climate change, not global warming anymore. The planet much like any natural system will not change consistently and universally. It will change depending on geographic and geography; you may not see warmer days but you will see different weather.

The ice age took thousands of years to end. The change we are looking at is happening in decades. The last 20 years (here in the US) have been consecutively the hottest in history.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:47:51 PM | | Votes: 1

GoObama08, I appreciate your posts. With all the needless name calling, bigotry and hatred you've displayed in your posts you've proven, once again, who the truly intolerant of our country are. I'm sure you've made your Obama proud.
— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 12:38:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

GoObama08 and the rest of you. Scientists do not all agree w/ Global warming theories. It's about 50-50. The Earths climate change in cycles. Some scientists have provided "proof" of global warming, but most scientists aren't buying it. People beware!! Don't believe the majority of the things that are told to you by the Govt. Take if from a former soldier. Everything that happens benefits someone in Govt, whether it's passing policy or financial gains.
— snatchandgrab (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:04:55 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

No, no. As much as I would love for there to be debate among the sphere of science, there is little anymore. You see, the science for climate change has been around since the early 1800's when Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier theorized a link between 'greenhouse gases' and global climate change. Back then, yes, there was much debate. Now however, the sceintists who hold out against the climate change theory are few and far between.

Don't believe me? Well here is a shortened list of some of the scientific panels and institutions that DO support the climate change theory:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint Science Academies
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

and so on... Please, if you disagree, take it up with them.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:42:45 PM | | Votes: 0

The issue I have with Gore’s supporting scientists is that Gore has essentially forced acedemia to take sides instead of letting the normal academic peer review process sort out the data scientifically. In other words, politics has affected (or retarded) the scientific aspect. If you agree with Gore in some type of capacity, you get grant/research money. Where does that leave the scientists that dispute the evidence (from a purely scientific point of view, not political)?

Scientists that want to investigate alternate (but not necessarily opposing) theories of global warming must use their own grant money; hence, there are less such studies. Do you hear about the possibly devastating effect of methane (either from agriculture or naturally coming from the earth) in the mainstream news? How about the RAPIDLY decreasing magnetic field around the earth and its effects on heating up the atmosphere and earth’s surface? I thought not.
— hybridfarce (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:18:35 PM | | Votes: 2

Let me state that I’m open to the possibility that man *IS* affecting the climate, but given the extreme complexity of the earth, I have to believe we don’t know it all. In fact, we most likely know closer to 0% than 100% of how earth’s climate dynamics work.
— hybridfarce (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:22:57 PM | | Votes: 0

Hybrid- You seem to think its merely the United States funded programs who support this theory. The IPCC is supported by various different nations, societies, panels, committees and so on; grants may have once been a factor but their impact is quickly yielding to a true scientific consensus.

I as much as anyone doubt 'proven' theories and over hyped claims but its hard at this point, with the wealth of research supporting it, to deny the link between our industrial revolutions and the climates rapid evolution. The denial that seems rampant on this forum gives this foul stench reminiscent of Copernicus in his days of geocentricism denial.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:52:03 PM | | Votes: 1

henbmw, I know of the international flavor of the IPCC, but it is becoming increasingly political in nature. Where are the alternate (but not opposing) studies? For example, it is very well documented (but unpublicized) that the Earth’s magnetic field (MF) strength has been rapidly decreasing during the 1900’s. The MF shields the Earth from most of the Sun’s harmful radiation; thus, less MF strength means more energy strikes the Earth. My day job touches on the effects of electromagnetic radiation – it’s a powerful form of energy. The Earth is getting more of it, and the MF decrease is accelerating decade by decade (could it be tracking the global temperature rise?). How is that extra energy affecting the Earth’s climate? This should be a RED FLAG of study in the context of global warming, IMO.

Gore has raised the awareness of global warming/pollution/energy use tremendously in the US, and I think that is very good, if it is not taken to hysterical levels (witness the E85 initiative, to which someone commented on below).
— hybridfarce (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 5:31:01 PM | | Votes: 3

LOL, oh Bob.

The motivation for hybrids and hydrogen fuel cars do not come from Global Warming but from the ever increasing price of oil.

Even though the US continually gets critizied for its C2O, we do a damn good job maintaining it. Take a look at India or China, everything is polluted, its disgusting. My freind just came back from India, showed me pictures of horrid conditions, dirty ppl everywhere with trash surrounding them. Global Warming is not the problem, its over population. Thats why China and India will never become the superpowers they strive to be, they have too many damn people and they all hate each other. Some of those Chinese provinces have some serious issues with each other. Once the internet becomes more popular over there, there will be a revolt against the Chinese government.
— no1listensanyway (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:27:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

Global warming is a religion, with roughly the same veracity as Scientology. Just as some people would declare Scientology a crock, so would some people declare global warming a crock. Doesn't mean either is necessarily wrong; like most religions, it's a matter of what people personally believe in the absence of any actual scientific evidence.
— sigmabody (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 1:53:44 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Except Scientology isn't supported by a wealth of scientific studies and an international panel of climatologists.
— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 3:33:14 PM | | Votes: 0

I guess this is not a CAR blog but rather one of politics and political beliefs which is what global warming is to many people. Well, you sure can tell a lot of people's political bent by their answers.
— cbro980 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:48:27 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Studies Suggest Biofuels
Can Worsen Warming
By GAUTAM NAIK
February 7, 2008 4:12 p.m.

While the U.S. and others race to expand the use and production of
biofuels, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests these gasoline
alternatives will actually boost carbon-dioxide levels and thereby
aggravate the problem of global warming.

A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based
ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by a hoped-for
20%, will nearly double the output of CO2 and other gases that trap the
sun's heat. A separate paper in Science concludes that the clearing of
native habitats around the world to grow more biofuel crops will lead to
more carbon emissions, not less.

Such findings could spur a big rethink on the purported benefits of
biofuels, an emerging field that has already been blamed for pushing up
prices of corn and other food crops, as well as straining water
supplies. The European Union has proposed that 10% of all fuel used in
transport should come from biofuels by 2020. In the U.S., production
growth is encouraged both by high oil prices and by the hope that
Congress will stiffen current rules mandating that refiners use ethanol.

Scientists have long touted the benefits of biofuels because growing
biofuel feedstock would remove greenhouse gases from the air, while
gasoline and diesel fuel take carbon from the ground and put it in the
air. However, the earlier studies didn't account for one hard-to-measure
factor: The decision by farmers world-wide to convert forest and
grasslands to grow feedstock for the new biofuels.

ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL

1
Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the business
of the environment. Latest posts:
* More Grist for the Biofuel Debate2
* Siberia: Solar Power's Next Heartland?3Such land-use changes can have
big and unintended deleterious effects, such as causing food shortages
and harming biodiversity. For example, when forests or grasslands are
converted for agricultural use, it leads to a large, quick release of
carbon when the existing plant-life is destroyed and the soil is tilled.
Even if biofuels are grown on cropland previously used to grow food,
farmers tend to then clear other forests and grasslands and grow the
food elsewhere. The net result: More CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

In one of the Science papers, researchers concluded that corn-based
ethanol would double greenhouse gases over 30 years instead of leading
to an anticipated 20% reduction. "Even if we're dramatically wrong, it's
hard to get to a result that says you get a benefit over 50 years," says
Timothy Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University and a
co-author of the paper.

In the second study, researchers found that the potential carbon savings
of biofuels - or the harm caused by them - varied hugely, depending on
where and how they were produced. They calculated that growing sugarcane
-- a relati
— cdhzhp (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 4:55:52 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Lutz is an arrogant a__hole. Those of you who think global warming is some kind of left wing program I advise you to look at what is happening to the weather worldwide. Snow in the Middle East in the desert, ice flows melting at top and bottom of earth. These are facts and we are contributing to the demise. Want to leave this as a legacy to your children, grandchildren etc? Let the industries pollute and sit back and enjoy the results. Let Lutz put his nose into the exhaust of one of his autos and breathe in deeply.
— drdonrs (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 5:28:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

I def. agree with Mr Lutz! Anyway I don't believe mankind can alter or change the weather! sorry! Im sure Al Gore will be upset.
— jag30 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 8:32:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

Can we save the political banter for another site? Autospies is for car enthusiasts not political fanatics.

P.S. GoObama08 sounds like a republican who is overdoing the part of an insane liberal to prove a point.
— ramblinwreck87 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/14/2008 10:57:59 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Obama

Wow, I'm going to be laughing my a$$ off at you guys when its 2050 and we have experienced zero climate change. I suppose by then you'll be on to the next political fad aimed at destroying capitalism.

Barack Hussein Obama has no private section experience (or public section, for that matter) and wants to create a WELFARE STATE in America. What part of that is good for the economy?

You obviously are over enthusiastic about your candidate and overwhelmingly out of touch with reality. Do us all a favor and go look ignorant somewhere else. - I hear they are running great rates on bus tickets to cook fringe Code Pink anti-military / anti-freedom rallies in Berkley. You'd fit right in!
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 12:49:08 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

"Btw, notice how in places that have smart people (berkley, seattle, boston) they are anti-bush, but places that have stupid people (all the redneck inbred hick towns in the dirty south) support this mini-dictator of ours? If you don't see that USA is acting like an empire instead of the leader of the free world, then you're the brainwashed stupid sheed, not me."

in the 1/2 century i've observed politics, it has ALWAYS been the GOPpies who tended to slash funding for education. they thrive on undereducated voters they can brainwash.

look at all the countries that have oppressive gov'ts. there too, education is slighted. and the free exchange of ideas (thru a free press, vigorous intellectual class, etc.) is also SUPPRESSED.

ANYONE who makes LESS than $200,000 annually but still supports the GOPpies, has been brainwashed. and/or is a religious idiot (don't even have to get to the level of fanatic) who puts "morality" above his economic self interest. (including better education and health care for his/her kids.)

and the greatest irony: there have been far more IMMORAL, CORRUPT politicos in the ranks of the GOPpies than the Dems!

if you DO make more than $200k/yr, i DO give you a pass on voting GOP. you are simply voting in your own self interest.

but the rest of you fools, WAKE UP!

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 5:44:54 AM | | Votes: -2

Obama,

From your comments, you come off like you were born 10 years ago...

I never said anything about being for the war or "against" the environment - i recycle dip wad. It just shows that you have to resort to baseless personal attacks to make your point...THE SIGN OF AN IGNORANT COWARD.

Bush won in counties across the country...not just in the South (and don't knock it or its fine people you shameless bigot). Don't believe me?? see for yourself...

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/printer/04nov08.gop.success

Though I live back and forth between Manhattan and FL, the South has some great Americans. Even your buddy Al Gore lives in TN - the richest plumb of all!
— BMW740Z4 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 10:50:39 PM | | Votes: 2

he must be making reference to GM's new car, "global warming".

chemo
— chemo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 9:10:17 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

The world appears to be warming right now. However, I am extremely skeptical about the claims that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing the temperature to rise. Temperatures rise and fall over long periods of time, regardless of industrial activity, and the current rise in temperature appears to be part of that natural cycle. I advocate greater fuel efficiency for cars and alternative-fuel research because I wish to reduce air pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, NOT because of global warming.

However, Mr. Lutz is wrong about Diesels. Diesel fuel prices are roughly comparable to gasoline prices in Europe, and Diesel engines are popular there because modern Diesels offer superior thermal efficiency and performance comparable to their gasoline counterparts. Besides, for all of you global warming alarmists out there, Diesel engines emit less carbon dioxide than gasoline engines.
— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 11:30:07 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

great topic...truth of the matter is all politics is local..warming, cooling until it affect you who gives a shi....just have a plan when (A) you need Noah's arch...(B) You need to wear a wooly mammoth lesure suit...or (C) Every breath you take will cauterize you lungs... Lutz is still a putz....Go Obama/Bloomberg 2008
— blacktip007 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 11:41:48 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

great topic...truth of the matter is all politics is local..warming, cooling until it affect you who gives a shi....just have a plan when (A) you need Noah's arch...(B) You need to wear a wooly mammoth lesure suit...or (C) Every breath you take will cauterize you lungs... Lutz is still a putz....Go Obama/Bloomberg 2008
— blacktip007 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 11:42:14 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

sorry about the double action there....LOL and I meant Noah's arc...
— blacktip007 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 11:44:14 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

LOL blacktip - the word is spelled "ark".
— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 12:41:03 PM | | Votes: 1

Dear MikeGallagher,

I have one word to describe your postings - RUBBISH!!
— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 5:27:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Dear MikeGallagher,

I have one word to describe your postings - RUBBISH!!
— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 5:27:49 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Dear MikeGallagher,

I have one word to describe your postings - RUBBISH!!
— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 5:27:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Dear Mike Gallagher. You are a total dickhead and not of these times. Go back to where you came from and bury your head where you have obviously had it every moment of your life. Up your arse. Someone remove this pigs post. This is a forum about cars. We dot have to agree with each other, but I think everyone here would agree that you are a total dick face.
— GruntyDieselsRock (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 1:59:18 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

Typical Religious Fanatic, no different from any and all regardless of what religion it is that you claim to bend too. Your kind of comments make you no different to those who wear bombs as belts, fly planes into buildings, fight on Bloody Sunday or take the lands of others in the name of God. You and you elk are the cause of so many of the worlds problems. There is no place for your type of extremism and ignorance. Go away you pathetic little dick.
— GruntyDieselsRock (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 2:22:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Typical Religious Fanatic, no different from any and all regardless of what religion it is that you claim to bend too. Your kind of comments make you no different to those who wear bombs as belts, fly planes into buildings, fight on Bloody Sunday or take the lands of others in the name of God. You and you elk are the cause of so many of the worlds problems. There is no place for your type of extremism and ignorance. Go away you pathetic little dick.
— GruntyDieselsRock (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 2:25:38 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

is this Mike Goofy the reincarnation of MidEngine?

sure sounds like similar nonsense.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 2:57:07 AM | | Votes: 1

i had only seen a few posts before the above speculation.

now i KNOW he is just MidEngine, overhauled after being banned. or patched up. he seems even more idiotic than the original ME.

"a muslim mgfr has never won LeMans!???" that's ME's new mantra for japan has not produced enuff nobel laureates, hence they cannot make decent cars.

ROTFLMAO!!!
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 3:20:14 AM | | Votes: 1

MudEngine (describing your muddled 'logic engine')--

you cannot correlate a nation or culture's level of advancement with its religion.

the muslims RETAINED all the knowledge of the west during the Dark Ages in europe. tolerance DECLINED when "the christian monarchs" kicked the muslims out of spain and instituted the Inquisition. (how 'civilized' was THAT!??)

confucian/taoist china developed and maintained the HIGHEST levels of civilization, including organized civil gov't and advanced technologies, before and thruout the Dark Ages in europe, and on until about 1700.

while Aristotle predated Christ, the aristotelian logic that western science is based on also RETARDED thinking in many ways. eastern philosophers were not so handicapped.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/17/2008 6:46:17 AM | | Votes: 1

and your point mr. galactikook?...this is a page about cars not about your head in the sand, moral pseudo religious crutch of beliefs that allow you to feel superiour while your family secretly wishes you were buried up to your neck at a remote water front in bali. Now.... CARS PLEASE
— blacktip007 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 3:30:12 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Mr Gallagher, What dictation software do you use, as someone with a brain your size is obviously unable to actually read or write? I bet its not Microsoft. But by the looks of things you have been posting this crap in other places. You really are an ignorant, bigot, twit. Ever slept with a woman you didnt pay? Thats right I forgot, you are too pure for that. You're a bigot instead.
— GruntyDieselsRock (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 5:55:16 PM | | Votes: 2

MudEngine--

not to prick your bubble, but text from neither the Koran nor the Bible was handed down directly by God.

adherents of both CLAIM at most, they were divinely INSPIRED. but still ultimately, the words were written by humans. FALLIBLE humans, with limited vocabularies. even granted their divine visions and INSPIRATIONS were valid, many things they could not describe with their LIMITED vocabularies. they had to just make do from their (low) levels of understanding.

Nostradamus was a better prophet than any O.T. prophet. did any of the latter actually come up with the NAME "Jesus?" NO. they used other descriptive words, but no NAME.
Nostradamus was not perfect either (he too had only a limited vocabulary; yet he described aircraft, submarines, ww2 and The Bomb accurately).
BUT old Nosty was a LOT CLOSER in coming up with a future name of historical significance. he came up with "Hisler." off from Hitler by merely one letter.

and further, if you TRULY know about prophets, they all provide mainly WARNINGS.

their dire predictions CAN BE AVOIDED, if people LISTEN and correct their actions. that is the PURPOSE of prophets: to WARN of dire consequences when people ignore their visions of POSSIBLE futures. nothing they predict is written in stone and totally unavoidable. (which is why even the best prophets are NEVER 100% accurate. sometimes people DO listen and change their ways. arguably the best prophet of all time, Nostradumus, had occasional misses despite his many "hits.")

unfortunately, mankind tends to be thick skulled and usually DO NOT HEED the prophetic WARNINGS.

which can be said about all the global warming deniers too.

scientists are also prophets of a sort. they work with scientific LOGIC, ANALYSIS, extrapolations and PROJECTIONS rather than intuition/inspiration.

so yeah, we can just go on living our wasteful (and wicked) ways, business as usual. but don't be surprised when things we've been amply WARNED ABOUT come flooding thru your streets and homes. or scorching our fields, forests, and HOMES.

floods and fires are not MERELY Acts of God. they are also the DIRECT RESULT of our careless exploitation of nature. 180 MILLION TONS of co2 EVERY DAY is NOT an insignificant imposition on Mom Earth.

so don't act surprised when you get bitch-slapped by more "natural" disasters come summer. (i HAD warned about droughts and fires LAST winter/spring. i was not wrong.) (and yeah, one could say i'm a scientist/prophet of a sort.)
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/17/2008 7:38:27 AM | | Votes: 0

MikeGallagher, aside from being a total twit, your foul perception of life is sickening. I know your parents wouldn't be proud of you unless they too are as sick as your sad self. And God wouldnt be proud of your either as this is not what religion was meant to be about. You are highjacking religion as reasoning for your own stupidity.

Despite what you may claim for yourself, your words make it very clear that your emotional intelligence is zero. Your argument that an Islamic nation cant win at Le Mans highlights you as a total idiot. And your bigotry exposes the fact that you are neither an enlightened person nor a nice person. Instead a sad little person with a very small brain.

This, believe me is not name calling. It is the result of your own garbage that you have been writing here in the past few days. Anyone who can read realises you are a moron. Maybe its time you woke up to this fact yourself.

It is idiots like yourself that are responsible for so much of what is wrong in this world. Like all religious fanatics and bigots, you are an intolerant one eyed fool. You as just as sad and stupid as every intolerant and prejudiced person. You make your own life very small, empty and shallow with this crap that you sprout. I dont imagine anyone wants to spend anytime with you. I guess you are rather lonely.

As I mentioned earlier put your head back where it has been all your life, up your arse, and dont bother us anymore. No one here supports you or appreciates your message.
— GruntyDieselsRock (View Profile)

Posted on 2/17/2008 11:51:44 AM | | Votes: 3

First of all I'm sick of this global warming nonsense, it's all a hoax and the two party system bough into this garbage and I'm sick of the democrats and republicans, both parties are selling out the country into the highest bidder.

and I Will not be voting for obama nor john mclame, both of them are for the new world order.
— shinycarsandtrucks (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 5:06:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

THE WEATHERMEN ON TV SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM AND THAT 30 YEARS AGO THE SAME PEOPLE WERE PREDICTING AN ICE AGE I WOULD THINK THAT A METEROLGIST WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAN I DO.
— TONYRICH (View Profile)

Posted on 2/15/2008 9:41:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

You speak the truth here.
— shinycarsandtrucks (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 12:20:27 AM | | Votes: 2

how do you KNOW it was "the same people?"

i 'spose the "scientists" bought out by the Big Oilys are exactly the same as the scientists who have actually analyzed FIELD DATA and concluded global warming IS happening?

and in any case, scientists (unlike BigOily idealogues and religious nuts) are always CAPABLE OF CHANGING their prognostications when exposed to NEW data and measurements.

theories are ALWAYS subject to modifications and refinements. that's why science is even ABLE to advance. they don't stubbornly hang on to flawed hypotheses once BETTER hypotheses and theories come along.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/17/2008 6:57:45 AM | | Votes: 0

I want global warming its going to snow another 6"-8" on Sunday!!!! I just watched the global warming episode of South Park and it was a perfect satire of the friggin' idiots and what they think about global warming. How many times has this planet gone on a warming and cooling trend? Glaciers come and go.... volcanoes erupt and expell more global warming crap than humans can produce. After Katrina the global warming freaks predicted more hurricanes to come... guess what we got only one! They can't even predict if its going to rain two days from now let alone a fifty to a hundred years. I'm going to buy a full size truck and maybe make this winter a little warmer.
— krackerhatesme (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 1:15:27 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

I want global warming its going to snow another 6"-8" on Sunday!!!! I just watched the global warming episode of South Park and it was a perfect satire of the friggin' idiots and what they think about global warming. How many times has this planet gone on a warming and cooling trend? Glaciers come and go.... volcanoes erupt and expell more global warming crap than humans can produce. After Katrina the global warming freaks predicted more hurricanes to come... guess what we got only one! They can't even predict if its going to rain two days from now let alone a fifty to a hundred years. I'm going to buy a full size truck and maybe make this winter a little warmer.
— krackerhatesme (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 1:16:16 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

I said it was a perfect S A T I R E - I did not use it for my source. Warming trends are actually very fast and the cooling cycle takes a lot longer. Look it up you might learn something. I was going to major in Natural Resources -Tree Hugger Science - having been was brainwashed by liberals like you until I took a class in Environmental Economics and found out how stupid liberal theories are -(Regarding thier stand on Kyoto Protocol and other views that simply don't work). For the record I do care about the environment and South Park is a wonderful cartoon that makes fun of liberals, conservatives, christian, jews, and everything in between - a wonderful satire of how we humans are. I just bought a Tundra 5.7 Liter V8 today and it loves gas but not as much as Al Gore's private jet.
— krackerhatesme (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 8:49:01 PM | | Votes: 1

Cars don't pollute! Just close your garage and run your car. Make sure there is no ventilation and you will get a good night sleep.--- forever! and dead!

Maybe CLUTZ can open is mouth and nose under my exhuast.
— Chaos29 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/16/2008 4:49:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

floods and fires are not MERELY "Acts of God" insurance companies define so they can welch out on claims.

they are also the DIRECT RESULT of our careless exploitation of nature: 80 MILLION TONS of co2 EVERY DAY is NOT an insignificant imposition on Mom Earth.

so don't act surprised when you get bitch-slapped by more "natural" disasters come summer. (i HAD warned about droughts and fires LAST winter/spring. i was not wrong.)
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/17/2008 7:54:14 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

The actual solution to several issues is actually rather easy: Solar Power Systems using super heated salt water.

The two inputs are sun light and salt water. The three outputs are electricity, salt and fresh water.

What have we got too much of? Salt Water.
What have we got too little of? Fresh Water
What do we need? Fresh water and Electricity.

Basically it is a transfer system that moves the melting water stored in the ice caps to the water table under the drying continents.

The secondary by product is increased vegetation. Gee that eats CO2.

We have this technology now. So why more coal power plants? Step up and invest.

— GruntyDieselsRock (View Profile)

Posted on 2/17/2008 12:07:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

EVEN IF GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE CARS AND TRUCKS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 20% OF THE TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS CATTLE RANCHES AND HEAVY INDUSTRIES ACCOUNT FOR 80% OF THE CO2 EMISSIONS OUR LAWMAKERS ARE UNFAIRLY BLAMEING CARS AND TRUCKS AND THEY ARE NOT THE BULK OF THE PROBLEM THEY SAY THAT EATING A STEAK IS WORST THAN DRIVEING YOUR CAR.
— TONYRICH (View Profile)

Posted on 2/17/2008 10:25:39 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

and 20% is NOT significant?

tell you what. open and leave open 20% of the windows in your house. see what effect it has on your heating bill.

next time you fill up, pump 20% of your fuel on the ground. (or in someone ELSE's tank, to not be TOTALLY wasteful.) see how significant that is on your monthly gas bill.

or suppose your bank just WRITES OFF 20% of the mortgages they carry. you think that will NOT have a significant effect on the interest rates they start charging you and everyone else?

in the big scheme, 20% MAY not seem that significant. but every bit helps, when you want to minimize costs. in the context of this thread, the recognized COSTS of GW and WEATHER CHANGES we all must put up with.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/18/2008 6:47:58 PM | | Votes: 1

further, what is the relative IMPORTANCE to modern life of power plants, and SUVs and other gas guzzlers?

would you prefer keeping your "RIGHT" to drive guzzlers but having electricity JUST 12 hrs/24, or trading a guzzler for a hybrid and having ac juice 24/7?

no one is expecting transportation needs to drop from 20% of all carbon fuel use, to 0%. but it would be great, if it were cut to just 10%. even 15% would be a great improvement.

likewise, the reduction of electricity consumption, by ANY amount. (since it IS a huge factor. a 5% reduction from that 80% total use, IS a bigger gross cut than 5% of the 20%.)

again, EVERY reduction helps.
— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 2/18/2008 7:02:00 PM | | Votes: 1

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

Do You Agree? GM's Bob Lutz Calls Global Warming "A Crock Of S***" While In Dallas

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles