AutoblogGreen

1. OK Bob, just ignore every climate scientist that's not on the GM payroll.
I get the feeling Bob's words will echo thru time to show what a bunch of idiots 'we' were to ignore human induced climate change.

Posted at 9:44AM on Feb 13th 2008 by Rich

2. Time to boycott new car sales especially GM. Kick 'em while their down.
"For the fourth quarter, GM posted a loss of $722 million, or $1.28 per share, "

Posted at 9:58AM on Feb 13th 2008 by Spike

3. Bob is bordering on Senility and his only reality is what he thinks is good for GM.

People being concerned about GW and the Environment is bad for GM (and its monster trucks), therefore it is a Crock of Sh*t.

Ethanol gets GM Cafe credits, therefore ethanol is goodness and light.

GM does squat in diesels and has a bad reputation with them, there for Diesels are bullsh*t.

Likewise with hybrids.

Except of course the Volt which will probably run on E85 and be double good.


Basically so far Bob supports the largest boondoggle going corn ethanal and craps all over actually proven efficiency booster like diesel and hybrids.

Is ther anyone who looks on Bob as more than comic relief, GM's version of Bagdad Bob (There are no tanks anywhere...)??

Posted at 10:02AM on Feb 13th 2008 by Snowdog

4. Oh yeah, I bash GM and a bunch of people here give me crap about it. Lutz is a putz. Look at him, you think he gives a crap?

Posted at 10:03AM on Feb 13th 2008 by Mort

5. Wow, really makes me want to buy a Volt. Sorry GM, I'll take my business else where.

Posted at 10:20AM on Feb 13th 2008 by david

6. In PR terms, Bob Lutz is a loose cannon and getting worse by the day. The folks in the corporate marketing department at GM must be tearing their hair out constantly running damage control for him.

Frankly, given the still-precarious state of the company's finances, I'm surprised Rick Wagoner hasn't yet asked him to choose his words a lot more carefully - or else stop talking to the media. The Volt program would survive for as long as GM could afford to fund it, even if Lutz were no longer its colorful public champion.

Posted at 10:47AM on Feb 13th 2008 by rgseidl

7. Mr. Lutz is off base here.

This planet is getting warmer. So is Mars.

Damn SUVs! Damn Sun!

Posted at 11:00AM on Feb 13th 2008 by Tim

8. Yah, there's no toxic spew in the air. Lies, all lies.

Posted at 11:15AM on Feb 13th 2008 by Mort

9. Many of you are being ridiculous. I don't agree with Lutz, but I would say that many other execs from other companies share the same sentiment on global warming. He is forthright enough to speak his mind which is in a way respectable. That doesn't mean you boycott a whole company for one executive's comments. There are hundreds of thousands of other employees like you and me that don't deserve such punishment. Don't forget how important one of the few domestic manufacturers of durable products is to our economy. It's not just cars, it's the supporting health care, legal services, advertising agencies, suppliers, suppliers of suppliers, etc...

Also, if you would do your research you would see that GM's vehicles are very competitive (if not best), with fuel economy in vehicle segments that sell the most, like mid-sized sedans and full size trucks. Not everybody wants to buy a hybrid. And where is credit for GM’s hybrid buses that save tons of fuel every year? I rarely see it.

Any company would and should take advantage of the political climate and regulations as they relate to ethanol. To not do so would be irresponsible to its shareholders and to its future. Money from that helps fund vehicles like the Volt and future fuel cell vehicles. You can blame the politicians for the policies, but don't blame corporations for taking advantage of them. If they don’t, the competitors will. Japanese companies take advantage of working their employees way too hard, (sometimes to death), currency manipulation and socialized medicine. Gasoline IC Engine Hybrids are a stop-gap measure but admittedly GM should have done more earlier with these. GM does sell many diesels in Europe. It's a global company. They are planning on bringing diesels to the US although I agree that they could have done it earlier too. Emissions laws have been changing though and it's not easy to just "bring it over". There are lots of government regulations and manufacturing issues that need to be overcome. Don't forget that buying products from overseas uses lots of energy in transport. Buying local with manufactured goods is beneficial just as it is with food.

All corporations are greedy and evil to some extent because they are in existence to make money. Other social responsibilities usually fall by the wayside. When they don't it's a pleasant surprise. And when they do say they care, it's usually just a PR spin.

Sorry for the long rant and the lack of flow.

Atul
http://www.thingsivenoticed.com

Posted at 11:21AM on Feb 13th 2008 by UH2L

10. Nice. Bob isn't dead.
He won't be invited to Bilderberg.
How could he be a 'denier' when it [AGW] hasn't been proven.

Take some off that righteous indignation and start kickin' ass!

Posted at 11:35AM on Feb 13th 2008 by MikeW

11. Just because something is popularly accepted, doesn't make it true. There's plenty of evidence to indicate global warming has nothing to do with emissions. Lutz may not be that far off. Don't dismiss his views, just because you don't like them.

Posted at 11:44AM on Feb 13th 2008 by brn

12. I have no idea whether climate change is real and human-caused, but by no means will I simply listen, sheep-like, to what scientists are saying as if it is gospel.

What most people fail to understand is that it is absolutely impossible to generate a cause-and-effect conclusion in this field, because there is no way to create a properly representative experiment. Therefore, all we really have is a tiny sliver of correlational data (only slightly over 100 years of data on a phenomenon for which thousands or possibly millions of years' worth would be needed to make a solid conclusion), which as any scientist will admit is not proof. In fact, anyone telling you about "proof" is not a scientist, because scientists don't believe in "proof," only evidence and probabilities.

That said, I don't really feel I have enough information to form an opinion on this issue. I will say this, however: if global warming is real and caused by human CO2 generation, then we're completely screwed. I think we're already past the point of no return if climate change is caused by us. If it isn't, it's still better to be using sustainable energy that we can get without tearing up the earth or destroying the life that occurs naturally upon it.

I also think that climate change won't be so bad overall. Yes, it will suck for us humans, but I think we're rather arrogant to have put ourselves above the rest of the ecosystem in the first place, and it's about time nature gave us the slap across the face we so richly deserve. Interestingly enough, the oil reserves we're chewing through now are, in fact, the result of global warming events long past. When the earth warms, lots of animals and plants end up getting buried alive, and over time the energy that made up their bodies gets slowly converted into crude. So it has been, so it will be. With or without humans.

Posted at 11:51AM on Feb 13th 2008 by Steve

13. I mostly agree with Bob Lutz. I don't think global warming is total bunk, I think it's more like 90% bunk.

Even the IPCC scientists (who won a Nobel for their work) only concluded that human activity is "likely" causing some global warming. If you read their report without mass-media hype, you will find that manmade CO2 emissions are "likely" causing a modest, manageable warming trend -- not a global catastrophe.

Lutz is absolutely right in his priorities. Getting the USA off its dependence on foreign oil is a pressing problem right now. Global oil depletion is staring us in the face, and will become a pressing problem real soon now. In terms of urgency, global warming is a distant third.

Posted at 12:09PM on Feb 13th 2008 by Tony Belding

14. I used to work for a guy like this and every time he opened his mouth, the rest of us braced ourselves, wondering how much business he'd drive away.

While Lutz's opinions are his prerogative, as a representative of a MUCH larger pool of people and resources you think he'd be a little more sensitive in his wording, whether or not those words represent truth/fact/whatever. (There's a lot of debate on that here, and I don't think that's the point.)

It's disappointing that prudence in character isn't required for a leader of a global economic machine. I can think several examples, but you probably see where I'm going.

Posted at 12:44PM on Feb 13th 2008 by zaedrus

15. And people wonder why GM's not more into EVs and hybrids than they are :)

Re, global warming: I love how people who've never read a single published paper on the subject suddenly become experts when the topic of global warming comes up.

* "because there is no way to create a properly representative experiment."

There are, and have been thousands. Furthermore, there are both bottom-up and top down studies, and only bottom-up relate to experiments.

* Therefore, all we really have is a tiny sliver of correlational data (only slightly over 100 years of data on a phenomenon for which thousands or possibly millions of years' worth would be needed to make a solid conclusion)

Apparently you've never heard of ice cores, sediment cores, varves, dendrochronology, coral clocks, or the geological column itself.

* "In fact, anyone telling you about "proof" is not a scientist, because scientists don't believe in "proof," only evidence and probabilities."

Love this logic. If you can't prove it, it's not real. Science doesn't prove things. Hence, it's not real.

* "That said, I don't really feel I have enough information to form an opinion on this issue. "

And yet you have one that you're shouting to the hilltops about. Which pretty much defines the global warming debate, which is between those who've actually *read the freaking research* and those who "don't have enough opinion to form an opinion", yet state it anyways as though they can merely "assume" what the evidence is like.

* " I will say this, however: if global warming is real and caused by human CO2 generation, then we're completely screwed."

Not even close. Depending on the amount of action taken, the IPCC forecasts for 2100 range from 1.1 to 6.4C

* "Yes, it will suck for us humans, but I think we're rather arrogant to have put ourselves above the rest of the ecosystem in the first place"

Humans are the *most* adaptable species on the planet. A polar bear can't simply take off a coat or switch from eating seal to eating beef, but a human can. The only thing that limits our adaptation to climate change, in general, are physical constraints -- infrastructure, resistance to populations moving, etc.

Furthermore, the issue is not that the planet is warming. In general, warmer times have been more hospitable for life (with a few major exceptions). The problem is that we're warming at a rate completely unprecidented in at least the past 650,000 years, according to ice and sediment cores.

* "Even the IPCC scientists (who won a Nobel for their work) only concluded that human activity is "likely" causing some global warming."

You've obviously never read any part of any of the recent IPCC reports. First off, according to the terminology laid out in the fourth assessment report WG1 technical summary, page 22, the categories range from "Very low confidence" (less than 1 in 10 chance) to "very high confidence (at least 9 in 10 chance). They go into detail on that page about the types of uncertainties and how they're assessed if you're interested:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

There is also "likelyhood terminology", ranging from "exceptionally unlikely" (99%). "Very likely" is ">90%".

That said, the summary states:

---
Current concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 far exceed pre-industrial values found in polar ice core records of atmospheric composition dating back 650,000 years. Multiple lines of evidence confirm that the post-industrial rise in these gasses does not stem from natural mechanisms.

The total radiative forcing of the Earth's climate due to increases in the concentrations of the LLGHGs CO2, CH4 and N2O, and *very likely* the rate of increase in the total forcing due to these gasses over the period since 1750, are unprecidented in more than 10,000 years. It is *very likely* that the sustained rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing from these greenhouse gasses of about +1 W m^-2 over the past four decades is at least six times faster than at any time during the two millenia before the Industrial Era, the period for which ice core data has the required temporal resolution. The radiative forcing due to these LLGHGs has the highest level of confidence of any forcing agent.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. Atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by only 20 ppm over the 8000 years prior to industrialisation; multi-decadal to centennial-scale variations were less than 10 ppm and *likely* due mostly to natural processes. However, since 1750, the CO2 concentration has risen by nearly 100 ppm. The annual CO2 growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm yr–1) than it has been since continuous direct atmospheric measurements began (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm yr–1).

Increases in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times are responsible for a radiative forcing of +1.66 ± 0.17 W m–2; a contribution which dominates all other radiative forcing agents considered in this report. For the decade from 1995 to 2005, the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere led to a 20% increase in its radiative forcing.

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2. Since 1750, it is estimated that about 2/3rds of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have come from fossil fuel burning and about 1/3rd from land use change. About 45% of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, while about 30% has been taken up by the oceans and the remainder has been taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. About half of a CO2 pulse to the atmosphere is removed over a time scale of 30 years; a further 30% is removed within a few centuries; and the remaining 20% will typically stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

In recent decades, emissions of CO2 have continued to increase (see Figure TS.3). Global annual fossil 25 Technical Summary CO2 emissions3 increased from an average of 6.4 ± 0.4 GtC yr–1 in the 1990s to 7.2 ± 0.3 GtC yr–1 in the period 2000 to 2005. Estimated CO2 emissions associated with land use change, averaged over the 1990s, were4 0.5 to 2.7 GtC yr–1, with a central estimate of 1.6 Gt yr-1. Table TS.1 shows the estimated budgets of CO2 in recent decades.
---

Why is it that when scientists come up with some new theoretical nanotechnology or biotech, or whatnot, they're brilliant and one paper is as good as good, but when *tens of thousands* of papers covering *hundreds of lines of evidence* reviewed by essentially the whole scientific community point to one thing, suddenly the scientists are automatically wrong and you *don't even need to read the research* to conclude that they're wrong?

Now, please -- before you keep "not having opinions" while at the same time stating your non-opinions about how scientists on the subject are all idiots and there's no real evidence, how about you take just an hour to at least *skim* the IPCC report. Some background.

* There are four assessment reports that have been assembled over the years
* Each has several working groups, each represented by several hundred scientists from around the world, covering all of the research published in peer-reviewed journals that applies at all to their group. WG1, for example, covers the evidence for climate change and human influences.
* Each working group is broken down into sections -- for example, solar radiation forcing. These reports tend to be a couple hundred pages long, although merely listing all of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject typically takes over a dozen pages packed full of references. Remember, the group here is merely summarizing all of the papers, not doing any research (the IPCC does no research on its own)
* All of these long, technical summaries are gathered together into a single, long technical summary for the whole working group.
* This technical summary is then boiled down into a brief(er) summary for policymakers.

Please -- if you don't have time to read it all, or even to read a significant fraction of it, please take a few minutes and *at least skim*. Know what you're talking about *before* you talk about it:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Posted at 12:54PM on Feb 13th 2008 by meme

16. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least for now).

In this case the enemy is high gas consuming vehicles.

Posted at 1:00PM on Feb 13th 2008 by jpm100

17. Take a box and fill it with air. Shine an ifrared lamp at it. Measure how much heat the air absorbs.

Repeat the experiment, but add extra CO2 to the air in the box. The air with extra CO2 absorbs more infrared radiation, and gets hotter.

Viola! You have just proved the underlying principle of global warming. You do not need climate models, supercomputers, correlational data, or statistical analysis. This experiment is completely repeatable, 100% of the time.

Posted at 1:10PM on Feb 13th 2008 by BlackbirdHighway

18. So what did they call it when the last ice age ended and it got really warm?

Posted at 1:12PM on Feb 13th 2008 by steven

19. Steven (#18)

Don't even try to use logic. Religious zealots NEVER listen to logic. Only dogma matters to them.

Liberals and other zealots only respond to logic by placing some label on the one with the opposing view. To "Man-Made Global Warming" zealots, common sense like natural sun cycles is simply heresy.

Some things like human nature NEVER change.

Posted at 1:53PM on Feb 13th 2008 by Tim

20. Whether Bob personally subscribes to the theory of Global Warming or not, is pretty much immaterial. His company is making rapid and major advances to the same destination global warming advocates are headed anyway, by reducing oil consumption in their products. The best way for us as consumers to thwart global warming, (if that is our belief) is to vote with our wallets and buy the most fuel efficient products. And then, as a added benefit, our dependancy on foreign oil will also diminish.

Again, regardless of whether or not he thinks diesels will catch on in the U.S., his Company is charging ahead to produce future diesel offerings in many more of it's vehicles, some of which come to mind are the half ton pick-ups, Tahoes, and some Cadillacs. And you know what?--if people buy a lot of them, they will make them available in more of their vehicles. We need to provide the market, and then they will follow through with the products.

Posted at 2:11PM on Feb 13th 2008 by Schmeltz