Agent009
Agent009
"I sincerely thank you for the warning. Now I'm off to sharpen my pitchfork."
View My AgentSpace

Print this Page | Digg It | del.icio.us

GM's Bob Lutz Defends His "Global Warming Is A Crock" Comment

It amazes me sometimes what kinds of things seem to “catch on” out there.

An offhand comment I made recently about the concept of global warming seems to have a lot of people heated, and it’s spreading through the Internet like ragweed. But I think that the people making big deal out of it are missing the real point. My beliefs are mine and I have a right to them, just as you have a right to yours. But among my strongest beliefs is that my job is to do what makes the most business sense for GM.

Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it. My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors. My opinions on the subject — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really. The point is not why and how did we get where we are, it’s what are we going to do to get where we’re going.

And I think that many of the people who’ve been spewing their virtual vitriol in my direction in the past week are guilty of taking the easy way out.

Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture. What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is — and will continue to be — hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.

General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely. GM is working on just that – and we’re going to keep working on it — via E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile.

The Chevrolet Volt program is occurring under my personal watch, because I -- and others in senior management -- believe in it. I fully expect that it will revolutionize the automotive industry, and I’m committed to seeing it successfully developed and in showrooms.

We're going forward with these programs because it makes good sense to do so — common sense. If it’s doable, why wouldn’t we do it? It would lead to nothing but good things: energy independence, lower emissions, and better air. Isn’t that what we all want?

As long as I am in this position at this company, GM will continue to take these initiatives and others that lessen, and eventually even eliminate, the environmental impact of the automobile. And that’s what people ought to be focusing on.

Thanks,

Bob Lutz


GM's Bob Lutz Defends His



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://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

SHOWTIMESHOWTIME - 2/22/2008 4:48:45 PM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Very nicely said.

reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 2/23/2008 1:48:39 AM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I fully agree that the auto industry should be removed from the environmental equation -- not because global warming is a crock because actually it is real, but the biggest contributors of CO2 into the atmosphere are China and India and their pollution dwarfs the pollution of automobiles. Automobiles are a social necessity without which we cannot function. BTW, CO2 is not the most abundant greenhouse gas -- water vapor is.

The answer to the CO2 problem is not to attack the auto industry. It is to hasten the development of cheap solar cells so we can move to a hydrogen economy by using free solar radiation to make electricity to make hydrogen. We should also start producing cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste, sugar cane, and switchgrass. And, planting many more trees would also remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

I have seen posts here that criticize the making of corn ethanol -- these critics forget that animal feed is a huge byproduct of the corn ethanol process and that only about 2 cents worth or corn goes into a box of corn cereal (the rest is packaging, sales and marketing expense, and overhead. Even if the price of corn goes up 50%, that still represents only about 3 cents worth of corn in a box of cereal so let's not talk about corn ethanol raising the price of food to the point where people are starving.



RealitySmackRealitySmack - 2/23/2008 11:37:20 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
"...not because global warming is a crock because actually it is real, but the biggest contributors of CO2 into the atmosphere are China and India and their pollution dwarfs the pollution of automobiles..."

Ding Ding Ding... BS!!

Check the list of highest polluters again and then come back. And also, temperature rise of planet earth if caused by pollution rises, than it doesn't take 5-10 years for countries like India & China to do it. It takes other industrialized countries 50-100+ years to make that happen. So, why blame somebody else?



528i528i - 2/22/2008 6:33:55 PMView My AgentSpace
-9 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
528i for life.

reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 2/23/2008 1:50:23 AM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Any diesel for life for me.

reply to this comment
njshiftnjshift - 2/23/2008 9:27:12 AM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Go replace your apex seals.

reply to this comment
theoptimisticpessimisttheoptimisticpessimist - 2/22/2008 6:02:56 PM
-3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
EL34EL34 - 2/22/2008 6:44:37 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
"Global Warming Is A Crock"

EL34 ;-)


reply to this comment
autoproautopro - 2/22/2008 6:59:57 PMView My AgentSpace
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Were all going to die!

reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 2/23/2008 1:56:31 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Die? that's a few billion years from now when the sun begins to exhaust its nuclear fuel and swells to a giant that will likely engulf our miserable planet. My plan is to send human seed stock into space in search of a new habitat so that presently known intelligent life (us humans) can be preserved in the observable universe. Of course this human seed stock needs to be genetically engineered to survive the rigors of space.


cdokecdoke - 2/23/2008 1:14:48 PMView My AgentSpace
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I was thinking on this subject just the other day. In the several billion year time span until the sun turns into a red giant, our technology will have advanced beyond anything that is conceivable. I imagine that we probably wouldn't simply let the Sun swallow the birth place of what will then doubtlessly be a vast, probably intergalactic, human(oid?) civilization.

I imagine that we may use immense amounts of energy to warp space and may perhaps simply replace the Sun with a similar star that has been taken from an ancillary system. The more interesting conundrum in my mind will be what will be done with the Andromeda Galaxy smashes into the Milky-Way Galaxy gravitationally ripping it apart.

In any case the stars really are the human destiny. I think that in some ways this fascination with what is up and above (which is assumed in our speech to be greater) is a function of a fundamental ingrained desire to be in a situation that one can be extracted from- perhaps this is the ingrained desire of our ancestors to escape predatory animals through flight (that last is probably an oversimplification)



EnnNorakEnnNorak - 2/28/2008 7:39:12 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
cdoke, you can't warp space as space is NOTHING and, as "nothing", it has no properties or chracteristics that would allow it to be warped. Cosmologists have created all sorts of mathematical models to explain away conundrums and, when empirical evidence fails to confirm or even contradicts theory, they throw in more constants and weird math.

Pure empty space is infinite and has no properties that allows it to be expanded, warped or shaped in any way. Every now and then sufficient critical mass comes together to start a big crunch which is followed by a big bang. It's ridiculous to think that our universe is the only such agglomeration of matter and energy. In an infinite realm, it is very likely that there are an infinite number of universes separated by vast distances of void. Big crunches and big bangs have been going on forever and will continue to go on forever. Too bad the concept of infinity is so hard for people to grasp.



rallyssrallyss - 2/22/2008 7:37:28 PM
+8 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
i live in michigan and right now i cant wait for global warming to kick in i hate winter

reply to this comment
TheSailorTheSailor - 2/22/2008 8:00:48 PMView My AgentSpace
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Well... Come to Denmark, here it has already kicked in... We haven't had a single day with snow here... We usually have two to three weeks of snow above the two foot marker! This year we've just had alot of wind and cold rain...


cktoocktoo - 2/22/2008 10:25:16 PM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Tell you what, I'll indoctrinate, I mean "educate" myself as soon as you learn to spell "recognize". :)) You sound just like an Obama supporter. He gives a hell of a speech with no specifics, but "just imagine"...blah, blah. I'll meet you back in this forum in about 10 years as you cry about some other catastrophe that is going to destroy us in 5 minutes...no doubt caused by George Bush. Let me guess, you, the libs in the media, and "the consensus" will be back to Global Cooling, all while Al and his buddies continue to ride around in private jets making huge $$$ as they try to scare the hell out of everyone.


american_madeamerican_made - 2/23/2008 1:03:39 AM
-1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Well Obama don't write on an English forum if you can't spell btw nicely done cktoo and fuelfool


EnnNorakEnnNorak - 2/23/2008 2:03:00 AM
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
rallyss, you got that right! Northern states and Canada will benefit from global warming. The tree line in Canada has already moved further north significantly in the last 50 years and to higher altitudes in the mountains as well. Global warming will harm some nations and benefit others with more abundant crops. Global warming is not a crock but it will reduce our winter heating bills. Overpopulation on our planet is a much bigger problem than global warming.


M53RM53R - 2/23/2008 9:03:13 AMView My AgentSpace
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Well here in the UAE, the temperature has gone extremely low. A 1st timer.


GruntyDieselsRockGruntyDieselsRock - 2/24/2008 6:08:21 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
CKTOO, recognise is actually the correct way to spell the word in most parts of the world. This business with a 'z' in many words is unique to American English. Thus the only accusation you can hurl here is that it is incorrectly spelt in American, the counter being that it is correctly spelt (or spelled) anywhere else.


cktoocktoo - 2/24/2008 12:05:17 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Hey Grunty, apparently you didn't see the :)). It was a JOKE. I could care less if GoObama can spell or not, but the fact of the matter is he is a typical left-winger screaming about whatever (GW in this case) and that the end of the world is near if we don't succumb to whatever the UN, et al say, by yesterday. Meanwhile, every other country can do what they want, but we are the bad guys. Sorry, sick and tired of us always being portrayed as the evil US, but when something happens, say a natural disaster, who is the first country to run and help with either money, food, supplies, etc...I'll give you a hint, it's us.

Back to GW, there are plenty of scientists that disagree with the so-called "consensus", but it doesn't fit the little plan of libs or the press, so you don't hear about it. Very tolerant of others legit points of view...

And then GoObama starts with the old cliche's about conservatives being Hitler, blah, blah, blah. I know a hell of a lot more conservatives that acutally do more for the environment than libs, whether it be driving a fuel efficient car or recycling, etc. Most libs just love to talk about it (ie Gore and his Hollywood minions), as they stroll around in front of the camera's in a Prius while heading to their private airport. You wouldn't know that because the shills in the press cover for the left all the time.

Oh well, my guess is most on here are about 19 and going along with whatever their liberal professors are saying on any subject. Hey, I guess if you want a good GPA, you should fall in line...



TheSailorTheSailor - 2/22/2008 7:58:23 PMView My AgentSpace
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
If the only thing keeping your ship afloat are gas guzling V8-performance cars and pick ups and your market is being swept away beneath you, you have to do something desperate... This is it!

reply to this comment
sold2earlysold2early - 2/22/2008 9:39:46 PM
-1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
This is even more desperate than his line about $6K in additional costs to the consumer in order to meet the 35mpg standard.

He really has no credibility whatsoever.



cktoocktoo - 2/22/2008 10:05:10 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Riiiigghhht. And you friggin left wing "idiots" use the same tactics every time. Get a life. Just because someone doesn't worship at the alter of "global warming", "homo behavior", etc., we are devil reincarnate. Boy, I thought you all were supposed to be the tolerant one's. Oh, I forgot, it's only if people think and agree with exactly what you say. My guess is you know nothing about Lutz, his education, etc, and wouldn't last two seconds in a debate with him. And who's the idiot??

reply to this comment
EL34EL34 - 2/22/2008 10:35:25 PM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
GoObama08, you know every little Cliché in the book.

BTW, tell me one thing Obama has done as Senator?


reply to this comment
cktoocktoo - 2/22/2008 10:46:01 PM
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Come on EL34, he gives a great speech as Senator. Does that count? :)) I will say he actually has accomplished "slapping" Billary around, which is quite enjoyable.

reply to this comment
GruntyDieselsRockGruntyDieselsRock - 2/24/2008 6:10:39 AM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Cue dick head MikeGallagher, racist, evolution theory denier and religious bigot. Maybe he is Bob Lutz?

reply to this comment
cktoocktoo - 2/22/2008 10:37:29 PM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
No troll here, and again, you are completely wrong about who always claims the mantel of "tolerance". Oh, come on, you forgot to call us "deniers" or "Nazi's", too. I'm sure you'll learn that in your next course.

And no one said the earth isn't warming, but it isn't because the US is Satan and we drive cars. And, actually, Saddam did have WMD's, well, at least according to Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy et al back in the 90's. Oh well, hopefully Obama can save us with his non-policy policies.


reply to this comment
EL34EL34 - 2/23/2008 12:27:25 AM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
After Bushy is gone I'm gonna miss Barney's Christmas TV Special :-(


EL34EL34 - 2/23/2008 1:22:17 AM
-2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
So you're predicting a Barack/Billary Presidency?

:-|



EL34EL34 - 2/23/2008 12:24:33 AM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Dat's a goot vun!

reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 2/23/2008 2:18:18 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
coprius, progressive socialism? I don't know of any country that has prospered under socialism. I don't see the Dems as socialists. I'm a Republican at heart but I do see the Bush Administration as having done almost irreparable damage to America so I would vote for the Dems if I could but I can't because I'm a Canadian.

reply to this comment
fuelfoolfuelfool - 2/23/2008 12:33:02 AM
+6 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
More and more I'm becoming convinced that "GoObama08" must really be a conservative trying to make Obama supporters look bad, because no one can really be as exceedingly ignorant and intolerant as this character—not even a member of the messianic Obama cult. I don't know who's scarier, GoObama08 or his fellow Obama worshiper Coprius, who wants Obama elected so he can implement "progressive socialism". That's what happens when too many kids get educated by the democrat-controlled public school system and get their "news" from MTV. BTW, here's a link to a great Obama video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7OFLl3asg


reply to this comment
EL34EL34 - 2/23/2008 1:03:11 AM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Wow, that's a powerful video about O-Bomb-A.

You know, he wants to nuke our ally Pakistan just to kill one man, his brother O-Sa-Ma.

Remember when Bill Clinton bombed our WWII ally the Serbs back in 1998?



EL34EL34 - 2/23/2008 1:19:56 AM
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Mr. O-Bomb-A, how do you vote?

Present.



Agent001Agent001 - 2/23/2008 1:48:50 AMView My AgentSpace
+8 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
OK Obama... Don't turn this commentary into an Obamanation.

Don't matter WHO wins...we're all Americans and we need to support and work with whoever is there.

Glad you're excited about Obama...fresh, young, charismatic guy...even though I normally vote republican, I like him because I think a sharp guy like that in the game is good for our country.

I just hope the best man or woman wins and does the right thing.

And just to give you a little perspective from the Repulican side, if we TRULY believed that Hillary or Obama could make it so everyone could have a non wal-mart-like job, single mothers had good options to raise kids right, old people had their needs looked after correctly and with dignity, we we would be the first people to pull the lever for that candidate.

The problem is if Hillary OR Obama wins, that will NEVER happen...they can't fix the key problems.

So because of that reality...we vote for the one who wants to lessen government, lower taxes and maybe someday dump the irs for a better idea.

The same problems existed when Bill Clinton ran the country as with Bush.

If we spend the money which we're not against, we just want accountability for the spend and expect results.

But God forbid if public school teachers have to actually be qualified and produce results!

Or the myriad of other organizations that want a free pass forever and ever without results.

Take your rose colored glasses off...took a long time to get here and it will take even longer to fix.

As I said, I just pray the person who can really get it done wins.

001





reply to this comment
theoptimisticpessimisttheoptimisticpessimist - 2/23/2008 2:12:37 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
With Clinton we got higher taxes but less government.

With Bush we gotlower taxes but more government.

Go figure.


reply to this comment
Agent001Agent001 - 2/23/2008 6:13:33 PMView My AgentSpace
+6 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Didn't say that's all I want.

I said the Dems aren't going to suddenly make life great for everyone enduring hardship in our country.

So rather than waste all the money with no results, I would rather shrink the government because there is no evidence that anything run by the government is better than run by the private capitalistic sector.

001


reply to this comment
fuelfoolfuelfool - 2/23/2008 1:42:35 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
GoObama08 says" I 110% guarantee a Democratic president. Republicans are done. It's over."
And, unfortunately, unlike the rest of his lunatic, hate-filled rantings, he's right about this one(a la a broken clock). Obama will indeed win. Never underestimate the number of ignorant, naive people willing to vote for someone who offers "hope" and promises of gov't provided solutions and benefits paid for by someone other than themselves. Sad, but true. It's the same dynamic playing out in Venezuela today.


reply to this comment
DW1968DW1968 - 2/23/2008 2:25:12 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Wow, my respect for Mr. Lutz has just dropped tremendously.

This is one of the more egregious attempts at deflection that I've seen in awhile.

Thanks for the tip to judge GM by it's actions, Mr. Lutz--that's not too obvious or patronizing.

Here's a tip to you: part of our perceptions about GM is formed by our perceptions about its leaders. When one of the key leaders of GM says he doesn't believe in something that most of it's potential customers believe in--but will be building vehicles to capitalize on the financial benefits anyway, that's called pandering...and its offensively insulting.

In other words, you don't "believe" in the Volt because it aligns with your customer's values and beliefs of helping to improve the climate situation, you only "believe" in it because it will sell to a bunch of "crocks". That's called selling out.

So I think you're the one, Mr. Lutz, who doesn't get the "big picture".


reply to this comment
993Turbo993Turbo - 2/29/2008 8:51:10 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
As bad as GM is doing, they would probably be out of business if Lutz wasn't there. I wouldn't be too rough on him.


dus10dus10 - 2/23/2008 3:18:09 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Gore's "inconvenient truth" is that — there's no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We've hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn't be, and now we're going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn't evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don't even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let's not dispute the earth's temperature. It's warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It's warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore's lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

"Wrong," say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man's contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature's, and that only man's exhaustings count.

Let's review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun's heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed. The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also cont


reply to this comment
randy33randy33 - 2/24/2008 2:12:43 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I admire you for what you are trying to say, which I think is summed up here:

http://tinyurl.com/39gnm4



dus10dus10 - 2/23/2008 3:26:28 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature's creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature's outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world's anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it's a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as "the most renowned climatologist in all the world."

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It's beyond the reach of man's screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man's largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn't reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn't reduce global warning. But that's an inconvenient truth that wouldn't make much of a movie. .


reply to this comment
dus10dus10 - 2/23/2008 3:27:13 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Some politicians
borrow doomsday science for their agenda and political gain.
However, there is a silent group of scientists that we usually don’t
hear from, who are not convinced one way or the other because of
the absence of irrefutable scientific proof and I believe I speak for
them, so here is my challenge to global warming caused by the
greenhouse effect:
The best way to establish the Earth’s temperature is from
outer space using satellites and by measuring the amount of
radiation emanating from the Earth. The reason for this is that the
surface temperature of a body is directly related to the amount of
radiation it gives off and there is a well established physical law and
formula for this, namely “Stephan-Boltzmann’s law of radiation”.
Therefore, if we measure the average amount of radiation
given off by the Earth we can very accurately determine the global
temperature and here is what basic science tells us: The amount of
radiant heat given off by the Earth has to equal the amount of
radiation received from the Sun. This is called the global radiation
energy budget and I am sure most scientists are aware of this (see
the diagram below). By the way, the amount of heat or radiant
energy per second received from the Sun and radiated away by
Earth is 178,000 million, million watts. This averages 349 watts
per square meter when spread out over the entire Earth’s surface
(1 square meter is about 3 by 3 feet). Using Stephan-Boltzmann’s
law we can now convert the radiation of watts per square meter to
temperature and determine that the 349 watts per square meter
equals an average global temperature of 7 degrees Celsius or
about 45 degrees Fahrenheit.
Here now is the problem: How can the Earth, according to
global warming buffs, radiate more heat than it receives. It is like
putting a potato in the oven and claim it can reach a higher
temperature than the oven itself. This is just as impossible as to lift
yourself by the hair. Why can’t the potato get hotter than the oven,
or why can’t the Earth deliver more heat than it receives from the
Sun? It has to do with the fact that heat, or radiation, flows like
water. One can compare the heating of a body, such as the Earth
or a potato, to a certain temperature by filling a glass with water.
Once the glass is full just as much water will run off as it receives.
In science we would say that it has reached an equilibrium where
the incoming flow equals the outgoing flow (see the diagram) and
temperature equals flow, flow of energy. Once the flow of radiant
energy stops there is no temperature to be measured. The fact that
temperature is a measure of flow of energy (watts) and not some
kind of bulk material that can be stacked up like a pile of bricks
and increased in strength is, perhaps, the hardest part to
understand and why so many of us are fooled. Think about a
water wheel, as long as there is a flow of water the wheel is
energized and will turn, but stop


reply to this comment
dus10dus10 - 2/23/2008 3:28:18 AM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
the flow and the wheel will stop,
even though it is still immersed in a pool of water. In other words, it
is not the water that contains the energy, it is the flow of water that
creates the energy.
What about the greenhouse effect? There are millions of
greenhouses being heated around the world and we know that
when a greenhouse is subject to direct heat from the Sun it can
become quite hot, much hotter than its surroundings. So how does
a greenhouse work? The greenhouse prevents the Sun’s heat from
being removed by convection and air circulation and distributed in
the atmosphere throughout the world so heat collected in a
greenhouse means heat robbed from somewhere else, but on the
average the global temperature or global energy budget will stay
the same.
How hot can a greenhouse get? When the Sun shines on the
Earth it sees the Earth as a disk, but the heat collected has to be
distributed over the whole globe including the night side. Since the
surface area of a globe is four times larger than that of a disk with
the same diameter, then the solar heat which is concentrated on
the day side, has to be distributed over a four times larger area.
This is accomplished by convection and circulation of the air in the
atmosphere and by the fact that the Earth rotates like a chicken in
a rotisserie. Therefore, the Sun has to deliver 1396 watts per
square meter, or four times more energy per square meter, in order
to maintain the average of 349 watts per square meter of radiation
leaving the entire global surface. A solar radiation of 1396 watts
per square meter corresponds to a temperature of 123 degrees
Celsius or 253 degrees Fahrenheit. Theoretically, (disregarding
reflection and absorption of radiation by clouds in the atmosphere)
one should under the Sun, at the equator, be able to reach such a
high temperature in a greenhouse where no convection or air
circulation will remove the heat but at the cost of heat elsewhere. In
practice, however, a normal greenhouse might reach only half the
above temperature.
The principal argument by the proponent of greenhouse
warming is that greenhouse gases reflect the heat back to the
Earth’s surface again and by some strange mechanism, makes the
surface hotter. This implies that the reflected radiation has to be
stronger or hotter than the source of radiation, namely the Earth’s
surface, which I cannot accept. Moreover, I cannot see how
greenhouse gases would stop convection and mixing in the
atmosphere which is the principal mechanism distributing the heat
from the Sun around the globe.
I do not doubt that there are long term global climate changes
that arise from natural cyclic variations and it is a known fact that
the Sun changes its intensity periodically. Do human activities
affect the global climate? How much does the burning of fossil fuels
in cars and power plants contribute to global warming? If we
assume that one billion cars around the world delivering 300


reply to this comment
dus10dus10 - 2/23/2008 3:29:10 AM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
horsepower each (one horsepower=750 watts), were running 24
hours a day around the clock, they would together generate over
200 million, million watts of heat, which would increase the global
temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius or 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
Power plants probably generate only one tenth of that. If 6 billion
cars were running, which equals the world population (every man,
woman and child), the global temperature would increase by 0.5
degrees Celsius or one degree Fahrenheit. Not much to worry about.
One more thing. I have always wondered how much heat
might be leaking out to the Earth’s surface from its red hot interior
and how this might contribute to climate changes. So far I have not
been able to find any references on that subject. Thermodynamics
is a complicated subject and it touches on quantum mechanics
and I do not think that anybody really understands it fully. But
simple arithmetic tells us from the diagram below that the Earth
cannot produce more heat from solar radiation than it receives from
the Sun.


reply to this comment
dus10dus10 - 2/23/2008 3:36:11 AM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Sorry, couldn't get the diagrams to show up...

reply to this comment
randy33randy33 - 2/24/2008 2:13:47 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
http://tinyurl.com/39gnm4
http://tinyurl.com/3b86rr



993Turbo993Turbo - 2/29/2008 9:12:59 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
You shouldn't present a rational, intelligent, factual argument like this. You might upset that Obama supporter.


boidzboidz - 2/23/2008 10:04:21 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
FINALLY the first INTELLIGENT post in this thread, thank you dus10. Global warming is real, BUT the Al Gore "Incovenient Truth" hype is a politically driven, pseudo science farce. No one from this crew has been able to prove the CAUSE of CO2 increase, so they blame it on fossil fuels.

True scientific research is showing that global warming is most likely caused by changes in the SUN and COSMIC RAYS. Imagine that!!! The sun that warms the earth and produced life on Earth is impacting global warming. No, no, can't possible be true, says Al Gore.

This sound, scientifically valid explanation has been presented, and supported by National Science Foundation funding. But this explanation requires scientific intelligence to understand, beyond the comprehension of dimwitted global warming Al Goons. This scientifically significant report threatens the Al Goon Nobel Prize, and is being dismissed by them. This explanation was in place as early as 2002 by a Japanese researcher, but has been systematically dismissed by politicians.

"Most leading climate experts don’t agree with Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we’ve been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited."

Read the full article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark


reply to this comment
randy33randy33 - 2/24/2008 4:30:26 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Great article, thank you for posting it.

More and more, this is becoming the prevailing point of view. That is, while folks generally agree climate cycles should be investigated (as climate change seriously affects where populations can persist; case: N. Africa), climatologists themselves have demonstrated that human fires and deforestation alone do not explain long term climate cycles (based on their observations which show these climate cycles have existed for tens millions of years).

So nowadays, climate science is rather more seriously informed when it is approached by mathematicians like Henrik Svensmark, who have a richer understanding of the physics of solar phenomena. And the work these guys do is amazing. Like the rest of physics, their discoveries are beautiful and perfect.

This is not to belittle the work of climatologists, their work is essential too. They have compiled and analyzed thousands of of years of data, and extrapolated millions more. But this is just how science functions: when one theory falls short, that theory must either be discarded entirely, or somehow supplemented by another. This is progress.

Now, enter globalwarmingism.

From Discovery article linked by Boidz:

"Q (Discover): In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun’s activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth’s temperature, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel called your announcement “extremely naive and irresponsible.” How did you react?"

"A (Dr. Svensmark, Physicist): I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. If there is a possibility that you might have an explanation, that is something that everybody thinks is what you should pursue. Here was exactly the opposite reaction. It was as though people were saying to me, “This is something that you should not have done.” That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.

I include this passage because it shows why increasing numbers of folks are becoming alarmed by the disturbing similarities between globalwarmingism and religion. The most shocking parallel is the reprehensible and disparaging manner in which devout globalwarmingists condemn 'heretical scientists' like Dr. Svensmark ('dissenters' who cast aside the THEORY of man-made global warming, and dare to discuss their observations of other 'forbidden' theories).

Ugh, so the nature of the 'heresy' in this case -- heliocentrism --- sends chills down my spine. 500 years ago, another heliocentric theory took hold, but ultimately only after the death of its author, Copernicus, who so feared persecution by the Church, for his whole lifetime he kept his masterful work a secret from the political l



randy33randy33 - 2/24/2008 4:32:00 PM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
political leaders of his day:

"Copernicus' publication 'On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres' was not published until after he died in order for him to avoid being persecuted by the Church. Often called the Copernican Revolution, this actually was not much of a revolution. The book was published in Latin, so the general public was not able to read it. Academics could, but few learned people were willing to face the Church and risk death. It wasn't even until 73 years after it was published, 1616, did the Church consider it important enough to place on its Index of Prohibited Books." (case.edu)

LOL! And so here WE are, five HUNDRED years later, and the very moment observations supporting any alternative theory are discussed, and begin to gain traction in the media, who but a political leader of OUR day, AL GORE, urgently dashes to the steps of his nearest public forum, snatches the mic, and proclaims infamously, "The Debate is OVER!" --- a proclamation so strident, it compels a wave of indoctrinated followers to seek out and condemn the credibility of the evil "denier".

Scientist. Banished. In the year 2008.



BoredBored - 2/23/2008 10:05:15 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
1) Mr. Lutz, I'm going to do the one thing that you can't: be blunt.
This letter is nothing more than reassurance to your stockholders, lobbyists and government officials. E85 is a good start, but the ethanol needs to be produced from something other than corn. Hopefully on your watch, you'll work on it.

As for your "Global Warming Is A Crock" comment: you made it, so own it. If you'll acknowledge that to the millions, if not billions, of current and potential customers willing to buy a GM products, then the consumers will be willing to forgive. The more we buy, the easier it is for you to reassure your stockholders, lobbyists and government officials. And as 997JET pointed out, you've got more important things to worry about than spin tactics.

2) For those excessively waxing politics on this post, please take it elsewhere.


reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 2/28/2008 7:49:00 PM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Not to worry Bored, significant production of cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste is just around the corner. Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass should appeal to all the greenies as switchgrass ethanol delivers over 500% more energy as it takes to produce it.


GruntyDieselsRockGruntyDieselsRock - 2/24/2008 6:21:57 AM
-2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I love George Bush. Yes thats right. I have had a change of heart. He has done more for the environmental cause than any other politician in history, Al Gore included.

How has he achieved this wonder? By destabilising the Middle East, cranking up the chav Hugo and re-creating the Cold War. The result is 100 buck oil and that makes everyone thing twice about fuel economy and it makes alternatives to petrol, diesel and natural gas far more competitive at this vital stage of their early development.

Thus good one George, you really aren't as thick as you appear. You are a greeny in disguise.

PS- GM's research produces 20mpg hybrid SUV's. BMW's produces 42mpg hybrid SUV's. Thats 100% off the game. Save your money Bob and leave it to competent people.


reply to this comment
993Turbo993Turbo - 2/29/2008 9:16:54 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I guess he didn't start the war to steal all that oil after all! Imagine that!


cdokecdoke - 2/25/2008 11:39:55 AMView My AgentSpace
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Before you sit here and extol any form of socialism and call the Republicans fascists I really do suggest that you read the book “The Road to Serfdom” by Nobel Prize winning economist F.A. Hayek.

reply to this comment
993Turbo993Turbo - 2/29/2008 9:19:10 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I thought the rich republicans were the ones paying the taxes?

reply to this comment
holmstarholmstar - 2/25/2008 12:02:00 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Regardless of what is causing global warming (and yes it IS warming) the problem is that if it warms more than about 4 degrees on average, then the massive deposits of methane hydrates on the ocean floor will begin to melt. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than co2, and there are trillions of tons of it in methane hydrate deposits. If they melt it will cause more global warming than mankind could ever hope to accomplish. But yeah, let's just ignore it. That will fix the problem.

reply to this comment
fuelfoolfuelfool - 2/26/2008 10:51:27 PM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
And now, global cooling.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

I'll be waiting for GoObama's response saying it's not global warming, it's climate change! As if his kind hasn't been screaming about dire consequences of WARMING such as melting ice caps, drowning polar bears and flooded Manhattan streets for the last 10 years. Leftists are just so predictable.


reply to this comment
nozferatunozferatu - 2/28/2008 2:11:12 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
It's quite amazing how many idiots troll these boards who don't believe we don't affect the environment...it's almost like saying I just took a shit but didn't leave anything behind.

What can I say...the world is filled with dumbshits just like the ones found on this thread.

Bob Lutz is a freaking douche bag...he has about the same amount of knowledge as does the hair follicle on the head of my penis. So for him to say climate change is a crock...it has no value whatsoever.

It would be really nice if all you douches who drive around in gas guzzlers would just pack your bags and go to the Middle East and live there...and fight your own wars. I'd venture to say you're to big of a group of pussies to do that...so you'd rather talk big 10K miles away from where all the suffering is going on.

The nice thing about a democracy..or so perceived at least..is that you get what you deserve in the end.


reply to this comment
993Turbo993Turbo - 2/29/2008 9:23:27 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I guess we should get out the horse and buggy again, noz. Then again, what about all those horse farts...



To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).

Most Recent Stories