Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Bob Lutz Turns up the Heat on Global Warming

February 14th, 2008 | Posted in: Environment

By now many of you have probably heard about this. Originally reported in D-magazine is a “closed-door”conversation between GM Vice-Chairman Bob Lutz and several journalists. On the topic of the Chevy Volt, Mr Lutz reportedly called global warming “a total crock of sh-t”. He went on to say he’s a skeptic rather than a denier and further clarified that the desire for GM to build the Volt was more to replace foreign oil than to reduce CO2 emissions.

On this site we examine all the Volt news, and it isn’t clear what type of PR this statement will generate. The comment was picked up by Jalopnik on Tuesday and made it to Popular Science and WIRED on Wednesday.

We here, of course, were dealing with some important politics and science in the interim, but hey, why not stir the pot a little.

One thing that’s clear about Mr. Lutz is he tells it just like he sees it.

Posted by: Lyle

103 Responses to “Bob Lutz Turns up the Heat on Global Warming”

Rob Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 6:42 am

Does not really bother me at all. Just build the damn car. There are crazies on both sides of the argument and I couldn’t care less what side of the argument Lutz fits into. Build the car like now so I can get rid of my Tahoe.

(Quote)
pdt Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 6:48 am

We should stop calling it global warming and start calling it our global experiment. I just don’t see how anyone can argue about the data showing that there is a historically (over hundreds of thousands of years) unprecedented rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that occurs at the same time as humans started burning exponentially more fossil fuels. So you have a unique event (CO2 rise) that is correlated in time with another unique event along with a very reasonable connection between them (burning fossil fuels emits CO2 into the atmosphere). One can argue about the outcome of the experiment (what will happen to climate), but how can anyone argue against the data showing humans are knowingly experimenting on the atmosphere on a planetary scale? We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so we have reason for concern that climate will be effected even if we don’t know exactly how.

Instead of arguing about global warming we should be discussing if we really want to do this global science experiment when we have a choice.

That would have been my version of “An Inconvenient Truth”. We’re having the wrong discussion in my opinion.

(Quote)
Van Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 7:35 am

I’m with Mr. Lutz, the Volt is a great concept whether or not man caused release of CO2 into the atmosphere plays a significant role in global warming. It it does, the Volt is your car. If it does not, Volt is still your car because it runs in the main on domestic energy sources, and greatly reduces urban air pollution.

(Quote)
Brian Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 7:46 am

Unless he is commenting on the actual Volt it self, his opinions mean exactly jack to me. I’m not trying to sound cruel, but seriously, who cares. I agree with #1, build the car already.

(Quote)
charley497 Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am

If Bob Lutz said it, it must be true.

(Quote)
voltman Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 8:09 am

I personally think it is a crock myself. Co2 and temp are certainly correllated but if you look real close at the graph, the Co2 rise occurs nearly 800 years AFTER the temp rise. Regardless, we need the Volt because burning oil is not a good long term solution.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 8:20 am

Lyle, I chuckled at your photo of a Crock (pot)! Yep, there are many like George Bush that think global warming’s a “crock”!

But the vast majority of those in the scientific community who’ve done little else but study climate change during their entire careers (including NASA’s top climatologists) disagree with Mr. Lutz. Effect of this uninformed opinion on his credibility? Very little, IMO ….in fact, we’ve found at NASA that “loose cannons” — even at top decision-making levels — can often be useful because they force others to closely re-examine and justify their opinions, not infrequently resulting in important breakthroughs “outside the box” ….like the Volt’s E-REV architecture!

PS: Watch the National Geographic channel’s “6 Degrees” this Sunday

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 8:34 am

PS: National Geographic channel also has “6 Degrees” on at 8PM & 11PM Eastern tonight, Feb 14

(Quote)
Ziv Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 8:40 am

I would just as soon Lutz learned how to shut up and concentrate on building the Volt. I think Wagoner must look at Lutz from time to time and think, “We actually pay this guy to say inane remarks?” It doesn’t matter what Lutz thinks about global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, he just needs to help GM build excellent cars and I doubt that he is doing that effectively. I wouldn’t be surprised the see GM build the Volt by 2010, sans Lutz.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am

It’s really pretty much immaterial what Bob Lutz’s stand is on the theory of global warming. His company is making vast strides to making fuel efficient vehicles, (see “Gas Friendly to Gas Free”). By pursuing a vehicle like the Volt for reasons in his mind that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, he is still running for the same finish line the global warming crowd is running towards. Therefore, cheer, not jeer.

(Quote)
Eco Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am

Well that explains why Lutz was so perfect for GM…walking, talking deniers of reality. GM has lived in a world of self-deception for over a decade, that their entire business model proved it. If the Volt fails, GM will be gone, just like the dinosaurs.

They fooled me once with the lousy Pontiac I drive. They won’t fool me again, ever.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:14 am

Look, when are people going to realize that people that are pro-EV can get a whole lot more support if they quit arguing about the rationale and look at the audience.

If you’re talking to the Sierra club, then say, global warming is real. But if you’re talking to a room full of conservatives, say, we need oil independence for national security.

My point is that moronic statements by guys like Lutz can actually help depending on the target audience… and push everyone toward EVs. It’s all about agendas. Let’s go GM, THINK for once!

(Quote)
Rob Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:33 am

Lutz did not learn anything from Toyota. But what can you expect from company that would like to see every american to drive a truck or SUV? Luts – build the damn Volt and retire! The sooner the better!

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:33 am

I listened to a speech Bob gave once in which he said that if CO2 causes climate change, then windmills also have the ability to disrupt global wind patterns, and thus climate. The weird thing was, he thought he was being profound when he said it. In fairness, he does always say that he’s right-brained!

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am

I doesn’t really matter how Mr. Lutz feels about global warming.
But it does matter how the buying public feels about it.
If the buying public sees that GM is building cars like the Volt, then they will buy it if they are concerned about global warming, or energy independence, or terrorism, etc.

But I have to admit, sometimes it amazes me on the things he says.
But he is not a politically correct person, and is not afraid to be open.
That type of thinking gives us all something to post about.

I just wish the Volt was already available.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am

Man’s effect on global warming could be debated as long as the Sun shines and the Mars polar caps keep melting! Damn Martian SUVs!!!

Anyway, Mr. Lutz is simply trying to keep on point with REAL issues like supply & demand economics in a growing world economy and exponentially expanding global population coupled with the industrialization of the 3rd world. Hummmmmm…

How about that Peak Oil and our dependence on our enemy’s oil for our economic, military and personal security? Becoming dependant on one’s enemy is NOT a real good idea.

Now, these are problems EVERYONE’S agrees with so SHUT UP about whether global warming is man made or not. It’s just mudding up the water, causing un-necessary bickering and delaying our transition OFF OIL.

We’re arguing about which side of our sinking ship we should launch our lift raft on.

WHO CARES!!! The water is rising! WE NEED E-REV-40s NOW!!!

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:10 am

Lyle, I’m VERY disappointed with the picture in this report. It shows bias reporting on your part and sours this site. BAD FORM!

Fact: According to Al Gore, over 2,000 scientists agree with man made global warming. To those who have been programmed the mainstream media, this is established religious dogma that only a complete (choose your name here such as “crackpot”) would dispute.

Fact: Over 19,000 American scientists have signed this petition disagreeing. http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Fact: That’s 9.5:1 against!

Fact: The blind faithful need only blind faith to believe. That’s Religion!

I say WHO CARES because we ALL want to be good stewards of our environment, we ALL want to be energy independent and we’re running out of oil anyway!

Please keep promoting E-REVs with FACTS, not theory and NOT religious dogma.

Thank you.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am

I think it ironic that Democrats pillory Republicans about using “fear” to push their agenda, when Dems are hyping Global Warming to scare voters into their environmental agenda.

Like Bob Lutz, I too am a global warming skeptic, but am adamant about basing our economy on domestic sources of energy – coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. I am also adamant that every community source their own water, and not acquire it from across a state or from other states, as southern California does. Each community needs to pay the true cost of their own water, from digging wells, recycling or desalinization, and not become delinquent in their own development projects, as southern California has become – nothern CA just shut off their water shipments, and NV and AZ will eventually shut of theirs.

Every city, county, state and nation should assess their own ability to generate the power and water their community needs. Otherwise, they will face a shortage sooner or later, due to sources they can’t control.

(Quote)
Brian M Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am

I have to say I am impressed with the reaction here. I agree that Lutz’s opinion on GW has no effect on me (although I am perplexed as to why he would say it that strongly). When I saw the headline I thought I would see 50 people declaring that they would never buy a GM again, including the Volt. I guess the more childish of us have already been weeded out

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am

Tim @ 17, take a joke. Go easy on Lyle. Geeze.

(Quote)
MetrologyFirst Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am

It appears to me that if global warming from CO2 emmisions is happening, the developing countries will keep the ball rolling, so to speak. Selling a few hundred thousand (or even a million + ) Volts won’t stave off the trend. I agree as others have posted, the reason we need the Volt is to reduce oil dependency, in this country primarily. If there are other environmental benefits, great. Whatever it take to get people to accept theVolt technology.

If world environmental issues need addressed, then that’s where governments all have to work together to find solutions and solve the problems. That is not GM’s mandate, or any car maker for that matter.

(Quote)
Jim D Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am

Man will debate global warming until Orlando residents live on beachfront property [and I dont mean at New Semearna Beach].

(Quote)
Jim D Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am

Im not perplexed why he would say that…..he sells Hummers…..

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am

Well I agree with Eco, #11. I’ve said it before – Bob Lutz needs a minder.

Never doubt that this sort of childish outburst is a PR disaster. It just gives the public one more justification to buy other brands.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am

For myself whether he is right or not is moot. (I think he is wrong, but big whoop. There are alot of other reasons to have a electric car…which we all know.

But Lutz, is a idiot. He has a tendancy to just let whatever is on his mind slip out his mouth. As a executive and public figure, before you speak, you have to consider what impact your words will have as a reflection of yourself and your company.

Saying “global warming is a crock of s**t” is akin to saying to 80 percent of your customers, “You guys are f’n morons and I don’t care about the things you do.”

It’s kind of like being a tour guide through the ‘holy land’ and saying, “This would be significant, if there was a God.”

(Quote)
Lyle Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am

Tim #17
The picture is just a crock of stuff, meant to be a visual representation of Mr. Lutz’ three words.

I’m not sure what that stuff is, mostly looks like carrots.

No bias intended.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am

The linked article contains an even more outrageous comment that speaks to the bone-headedness of Lutz and I think GM in general. Hopefully it was the reporter that mis-paraphrased Lutz, but:

“Hybrid cars like those made by Toyota “make no economic sense,” because their price will never come down…”

Now we see the beauty of the Volt. By depending on outrageously expensive and unproven technology, the price will be able to come down. Hence it is superior to the affordable products that Toyota is short-sighted enough to offer. That the cost of the Prius is fairly easily offset by the fuel savings make no economic sense in comparison to the Volt, which has no chance of being burdened by a break-even point.

The volt will come down in price as batteries become less expensive. As Toyota/Honda hybrids clearly contain NO batteries and would not benefit from larger, less expensive batteries, they will not benefit from this.

Lutz is a genius!

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am

What is it that everyone concentrates only on Co2? If you’re burning fossil fuels there is much more than CO2 coming out of that tail pipe and none of it is good for the environment I assure you.

I remember seeing an infomercial on TV for a 2-stroke outboard motor and they claimed how it actually emitted less Co2 than a competitor’s 4-stroke. That might be true, but as a 2-stroke it is also burning oil and emitting smog at much higher levels than any 4-stroke which does not burn oil as part of it’s lubrication process. As far as the environment is concerned I found that argument to be total BS.

If you drive the Volt on electric, you emit neither, and if you run it on E85 you emit Co2 and much less smog. Does anyone think that the Denver dust cloud is pure Co2?

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am

Statik, #25:

Right.

I am not smart enough to move these quotes around, so I direct your attention to comment #21 under “GM’s Financials” below. I thought that it was a bit crackpot at the first reading, but now the guy is starting to sound absloutely prescient.

(Quote)
Mike756 Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am

My faith in GM just went up.

I have been reading as much as I can about global warming for over a year now, and I have to say that I agree with Mr Lutz.

Now bring on the Volt!

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

The irony is that even some big oil companies and oil industry groups now admit man made global warming is real thanks to the burning of fossil fuels (carbon sources), and at the same time the destruction of large carbon sinks (rain forests). The oil industry no longer is in deny and delay mode as they don’t have to worry about it will crimp demand (and hence prices) for their products with worldwide demand (thanks to China and India) far outpacing supply (peak oil if not already here will soon be, but even it you don’t believe it, demand will continue to increase faster than new production can go online).

And Tim’s pointer to a website proclaiming 19,000 “American scientists” signed a petition is what folks should really be skeptical about. The organization running the website is funded by Exxon/Mobil (go to http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ and punch in the website/organization). Seitz himself was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants. Conflict of interest? I also looked at the process to sign the petition… their definition of a “scientist” is pretty loose and there is no request for information that can be used to verify anyone’s claim they are a scientist to begin with, never mind having any education or work experience in the field of climate science. And the petition is worded such that even the majority of PEER REVIEWED climate scientists who agree that global warming is real and the causes of it, could sign this “petition” and not be in conflict. Terms like “catastrophic heating”.

In any case, as they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows, and even those in denial about man made global warming can stand side by side with those they disagree with for a common cause. Ie. National security. Every time folks fill up they send money to the Middle East, which makes it into the hands of groups that want to kill us and our way of life. Remember that all (but one I think) of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, whom we are very good friends with because we need their oil. It’s also a matter of economic security… we can’t keep borrowing money from the Chinese so we can turn around and send it to the oil rich countries. Don’t let the (ex) Soviet Unon, rich in oil, get the last laugh.

(Quote)
Brian Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

#2
I think the question of whether we want to commit such a global experiment is the best qustion. Few could argue with it on either side. Like it or not, our society Requires the technology that is dependent on oil. We will ultimately be forced by economic reasons to move to other technologies as oil will run out. That will take too long. However, this can be attacked from both sides of the political spectrum – the other side wants independance from foreign countries on the US politics and economy. Argue energy independance with the right and global warming with the left, and we should get the job done.

My letter to my (GA) congressman was different than those I’ve seen here. My experience has been that you have to meet people where they are if you want to move them.

My letter:

I believe you are concerned, as I am, with our economic dependence of foreign oil. I also understand that you typically prefer market forces to offer solutions to problems rather than government bureaucracy, as do I. However, an obvious consequence of the law of supply and demand is that the cost of oil will continue to increase as worldwide reserves inevitably shrink. While I know market forces will eventually resolve this issue, it will take many decades and likely require a recession if not a depression during the transition. There are a few cases where government intervention can actually make a positive difference. CAFÉ laws are not the answer – they just prolong the pain because they don’t do anything to get us off of oil, and they cost auto makers significant research money that could be better spent in other areas. The answer is moving to another energy carrier. Some have supported hydrogen as a good option. In mass production hydrogen could be cheaper than gasoline is now, as well as totally remove the influence of foreign powers on the US economy. But the infrastructure to use it doesn’t exist, and it is foolhardy to “put all of our eggs in one basket.” Another option is to use batteries as the energy carrier. This has the significant advantage that most of the infrastructure to fuel it is already in place. However, it has the significant disadvantage that current battery technology is not up to the task. Battery based vehicles today are unsatisfactory to most of the US population, to say the least.

GM, a US company, is currently in development of a car that could have a profound impact. Whether we go forward with new battery technology, or we move to hydrogen, or some other technology, the Volt is the framework we need to do it. The GM Volt can be driven 40 miles while using only batteries then switch to gasoline for another 600 miles. Fundamentally, the car is all electric using batteries and a gasoline powered generator for a range extender. It is this all electric framework that is important. It works with practically all the viable solutions on the foreseeable horizon. For example, this range extender could be hydrogen based just as easily as gasoline based. In fact, GM has stated that they plan to build a car that uses the same technology but runs on a hydrogen fuel cell. On another front, as battery technology improves, we may no longer need a range extender. The thing is, 90% of the technology needed to implement all of these technologies already exist in this car. Mass produced, it is a powerful alternative. Auto manufacturers depend on technology that has been highly developed for over a hundred years. Such pre-existing tech allows them to sell cars much cheaper than they could otherwise. Going electric, as the volt does, requires a change in almost everything, from the drive train, to the radio, to the air conditioner. For this reason, the Volt will have a very hard time competing with the highly developed designs used in the massively produced standard gasoline cars that are on the road today. We need to start mass producing these new designs now so that we can get the cost down as quickly as possible. GM needs help to make this work.

While I think energy independence is motivation enough, it is of note that this technology is a significant step toward environmental sustainability. It has fewer carbon emissions in it’s current form, and zero carbon emissions in the fuel cell or fully battery based forms. It has the potential to reinvigorate our struggling domestic auto industry and reestablish American leadership. And, it will make better cars.

The government has offered credits of up to $3400 to Toyota and Honda for their hybrid technology. The technology that these hybrids are based on cannot be used to support a hydrogen future and only with great modification could they support a battery based future. They are a patch on a failing dam. The Volt, however, is the foundation that can rebuild the dam. Credits on the Volt will be a far better way to enable sooner the technology that ultimately can make the biggest difference. The Volt’s technology can be used across a far greater range of solutions than anything else we have seen so far, and the more cars it is put in, the cheaper it becomes. We need solutions sooner than purely economic forces would create if we want to stop giving billions of dollars to our enemies.

For these reasons and more, I strongly advocate offering tax credits to push what is currently the only viable technology that can truly get us off of oil. This technology is in the GM Volt.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

#27 GXT,

Just because Toyota is selling the Prius at an affordable price, doesn’t mean that Toyota is making any money on it. Moreover, as Lutz pointed out, it is a dead-end configuration, which can’t be cost reduced significantly, and can’t be performance enhanced significantly – stupid strategy – typical Asian mentality, box yourself into mere improvements, instead of taking great innovative leaps forward.

In the previous article, GM provided a complete roadmap towards eliminating fossil fuels – where is Toyota’s? At least Honda has their hydrogen vehicle.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

#25, Statik,

Your statement inferring that 80% of the population believes global warming is real is absolutely false. Try talking to people who don’t worship in the church of liberalism once in awhile, so that you have some perspective on reality.

(Quote)
Patriots Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Do not believe Bob Lutz, he is a crook, so is GM, it is sad gm’s ultimate failure will result in many job losses, on a national security level, America should embrace Toyota and Honda anf Ford if Ford can behave like Japanese.
May god help those poor souls in Ohio when GM shut plants

(Quote)
Drake Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

And in other news, cigarettes don’t cause cancer…

(Quote)
SLNTAX Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

if lutz would use all the energy he expends talking bs on getting the volt to market we would have had by now. i got a crazy idea instead of hype and hot air how about some real results in the form a car everyone can buy

(Quote)
Statik Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

#34 Jason M. Hendler

“Your statement inferring that 80% of the population believes global warming is real is absolutely false. Try talking to people who don’t worship in the church of liberalism once in awhile, so that you have some perspective on reality”

You speak to me in absolutes. Your speech is littered with assumptions of me and you finish it all off with a personal attack. Clearly your words will carry meaning without any reliable references to disprove my statistics.

Here’s a couple polls for you from the mainstream, with a wide base so they margin or error is small. I anxiously await your pithy retort. These polls are that global warming is a ‘SERIOUS PROBLEM’ and not just ‘does it exist?”

“No wonder 86 percent of Americans think global warming is a serious problem and 70 percent want the government to do something now.” — ABC News

“83% believe global warming is a serious problem (up from 70% in 2004″ — Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and released in March of 2007

(Quote)
Dave Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I can’t wait for Mitsubishi or anyone else to come out with a viable solution. I can’t imagine lining the pockets of Bob Lutz with my hard earned money.

(Quote)
Neil Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

#2: You’ve hit the nail on the head. You don’t have to be a GW true believer to think that putting gigatons of GHGs into the air is a risky business.

(Quote)
Pat Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

You have to ask yourself a question; What is ONE solution to two problems in this world.

1) We burn to much fossil fuel.

and

2) We import to much of the same.

(Quote)
Tom Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I’m always interested to see how anti-global-warming people think. It’s very similar to people who don’t believe in evolution.

Science has given us very simple, elegant theories for global warming and evolution, both of which are supported by experimental data. Anybody who relies on their critical thinking skills just accepts both theories and moves on. (In fact, speaking of experiments, it’s possible and even fairly easy to do experiments in your own home to support these theories. For example, in a couple of days you can breed a new species of fruit fly that lives twice as long. Or you can shine heat lamps through different mixtures of O2 and CO2 and see which ones get hotter.)

Yet there seems to be a small subset of the population who reject these theories. And it’s usually because of people in positions of influence to them. Their pastor tells them to reject evolution, or a big-oil scientist (or web site) tells them to reject global warming.

Human beings are social creatures and apparently some humans are so swayed by authority that they are able to ignore obvious conclusions that logical people would draw from data and reason.

It’s amazing how close we really are to animals.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Brian #32
“Argue energy independance with the right and global warming with the left, and we should get the job done.”

I completely agree, and I think I am both from the right and from the left, so I’ll use your letter. Thanks.

(Quote)
Scott Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Ah, good times…. remember back in the 70’s when scientists were absolutely positive we were heading for another ice age?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

You can always count on the scientific outlook to change as new data comes in and you can always count on folks stating that the current outlook is the end-all truth to our planet. Not saying that GM is true of false, just that you can expect the “facts” to change as science learns more about it.

Now, as it has been stated before, give the alternative powered cars already! Most of us, regardless of GM beliefs would, I like to believe, like to have options that make us better stewards of our wolds resources and get us off our dependance of foreign oil.

-Scott

(Quote)
cybereye Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Tom #42

So you want to hear my anti-global-warming view. The problem is that many people look at theories as facts. Therories are just data that try to find a reason to fit the idea of “casue and effect”. Many agree that CO2 make it warmer, but does that cause the “global-warming” problem. Who knows. That why it call therories. I’m aware that it getting hotter then it use to be. I would says “global-warming” is part of mother nature telling us to deal with it. So I would worry more about the water problem that we need for life. I would rather spend more money to invest water filter so we can drink fresh water from from the sea, rather waitting for rain. Hell, I sure don’t want to spends billion of dollars to remove CO2 just to see if that the therories are true or not. Heck, there are therories still running around about “how dinosaurs die” or “the big bang”.
I would says CO2 cause health problem, but not global-warming problem. E-REV may someday proof that CO2 does not cause global-warming. The global-warming therories still needed more work.

(Quote)
Scott Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Sorry all, in my previous post (#44) I meant to write GW (global warming) not GM. My apologies.

(Quote)
AkRich Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

It’ s interesting thought process.

If a scientist conducts a study and it is funded in part by an energy company then the science must be junk, however if a scientist conducts a study and it is funded by the UN or another similar organization it is irrefutable.

I have looked long and hard at both sides of the issue, I pretty much ignore any cable news item as sensationalized. After objectivly looking into this for several years, I find the evidence for man made global warming weak at best. That said, I support the Volt for national security reasons.

Realize that even if someone disagrees with you, you do not have to be disagreeable.

Note: Mr. Lutz’s conversation was supposed to be “closed door”, so much for honor among journalist.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Denial about climate change by focusing on oil consumption instead won’t change the reality that most electricity creation results in carbon emission too.

And I see several greenwashting attempts. Pretending that there are not any Prius already using hydrogen won’t change reality of it. Several have engines adapted to run on hydrogen. Others have fuel-cell in place of the engine.

Say what you want. Just remember that your children will later be judging the decisions that were made. Did we try? Or did we come up with excuses not to?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

#42, Tom,

You may be able to create a new “family” of fruit flies with twice the lifespan, but they will still be able to breed with other fruit flies, thus, they are NOT a new species.

It is a FACT, that NO scientist has been able to conduct a REPEATIBLE experiment to BREED a NEW species. There have been reports of spontaneous speciation of an organism during an unrelated experiment, but NO NEW SPECIES has been REPEATIBLY and INTENTIONALLY CREATED.

(Quote)
DG Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

It was a closed conversation let it stay that way. If your going to judge a person on a comment make sure you heard the whole conversation and his full point of view. Like stated before his oppinion is irrelevant, build the damn car. Period.

(Quote)
DG Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

PS. Trying to revolutionize an industry as big as the automotive ind. far outweighs an op pinion on global warming even “IF” it is negative.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

#38, statik,

Gee, you quote ABC (liberal media) and Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (liberal department of liberal school), so it is no wonder that you get the answer you want.

Let’s, for the sake of arguement, say that a ridiculous majority “believe” GW is a serious problem. The next question should be, “How many of you are willing to either pay more for your current lifestyle or sacrifice some portion of your current lifestyle to address GW?” I bet the numbers drop through the floor.

The worst part of liberals using these scare tactics, is that they don’t offer an solutions to maintain current lifestyles at no additional cost. Liberals are the laziest policy makers ever – for every problem, they suggest a tax, which solves nothing. Only the truely brilliant can offer policies that will maintain or improve current lifestyles at no additional cost.

(Quote)
Wise Golden Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

16 says it well, “We’re arguing about which side of our sinking ship we should launch our lift raft on.”

Amen brother.

That said, global warming is a crock of s^&**.

Actually, it is getting warmer, but we just don’t know why. It might be greenhouse gasses, but the vast majority of scientist say that it is not. It might be a natural cycle — that’s my bet. It might be a fluky solar cycle. Point is, we don’t know what is causing it and the more that environmentalist insist that we do while presenting opinion and theory as fact, the more some of us (Bob Lutz and I) will push back.

Here is what I do know:
God said to be stewards of the planet, his gift to us. That means don’t pollute.
Oil is produced by bad people who want to cause our demise. If we are going to invest in a new technology, it might as well be clean.
New technology gives America the ability to boost it’s economy and our standard of living, creating jobs and wealth.

Like #16 said, “We’re arguing about which side of our sinking ship we should launch our lift raft on.” It just can’t be said any better.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

#52 Jason M. Hendler

You called me out. I’m waiting on your mainstream (non-liberal) polls saying that the American population doesn’t believe GW even exists…good luck with that.

I have no idea why you have this ‘liberal’ bee in your bonnett. I myself am a ‘liberal. I own my own mid-sized business. I pay a buttload of taxes. I really don’t care if one case is right or wrong…the only reason I come here, is because I believe we should get away from conventional fuels. I believe electric is the way to go…and renewable electric at that.

If you read my post I don’t even give my opinion on GW here…I merely pointed out why it makes no sense the Lutz would open his trap about it.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

#53, Statik,

Conservatives don’t take polls, because polls are irrelevent. Libs use polls as if they are facts, but they are mere opinion.

I think it is important for an automaker to reassure oil companies that they are NOT anti-petroleum, and are seeking only to eliminate FOREIGN oil, NOT domestic oil.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Stating support with your wallet is by far the most pronouced way of expressing an opinion.

Of course, there must actually be something available for purchase.

Build the car.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me when it’s over please.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Once again, I have to plead that we, as a group, need to focus on working together rather than ranting (albeit heartfelt and passionately) AT each other. It’s pretty safe to say that absolutely noone’s mind is going to be changed here. It’s also pretty safe to say that almost all of us (sans trolls) want the VOLT to get it’s wheels on the ground and be successful. Beating up Bob Lutz may feel good, but it sure seems like he’s going to do whatever he has to to achieve OUR goal.
We should all get back on point and promote this vehicle.
JMO,
God Bless,
Tagamet

(Quote)
David L Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

#52 – Jason M. Hendler wrote: Let’s, for the sake of arguement, say that a ridiculous majority “believe” GW is a serious problem. The next question should be, “How many of you are willing to either pay more for your current lifestyle or sacrifice some portion of your current lifestyle to address GW?” I bet the numbers drop through the floor.

Interesting point … A Canadian newspaper article from about seven months ago provides some answers:

The global poll of more than 22,000 people in 21 countries, including 1,000 Canadians, suggests that citizens in general – including those in the U.S. and China, the world’s biggest polluters – are more prepared than their governments to support tough measures.

Canadians, in particular, are eager to step up, Miller told CanWest News Service, noting they “are among the most concerned about climate change and most ready to change their lifestyles and pay higher energy taxes to fund energy conservation and cleaner fuels – about 10 points ahead of Americans on all questions.”

The poll, conducted between May 29 to June 26, 2007, found that an “overwhelming” 91 per cent of Canadians believe people must make unspecified personal “lifestyle and behaviour” changes to reduce their own climate-changing emissions.

There is hope after all!

(Quote)
microsrfr Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Recently President Bush was interviewed by Nightline in Saudi Arabia. He stated that it would be unreasonable to ask the Saudi’s to pump more oil each day bacause they probably couldn’t. We are rapidly approaching a permanent and growing world wide oil shortage which will bring the world economy to its knees. We need the electric car ASAP, but even that won’t be soon enough as it will take 10 – 15 years to replace the fleet. Alternatives such as natural gas conversions will be necessary in the mean time.

Of course we should consider global warming — converting over to electric cars is a best first step which when taken in parallel with development of solar and wind power will ultimately control CO2 emissions.

(Quote)
Nick Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

A list of reasons to be skeptical about man-made global warming claims:

1. Carbon emissions skyrocketed after WWII and temperatures declined for the next three decades.

2. The earth has been warming and cooling forever. The kind of warming we are having now has happened repeatedly throughout (literally) the eons, well before the Industrial Revolution.

3. C2O and temperature levels have covaried for ages. There is reason to believe temperature increases precede C2O increases in many cases, the opposite of what would happen of C2O were the cause of the warming.

4. There is no consensus among “climate scientists” on the topic. Researchers from places such as MIT on down disagree with the man-made global warming thesis.

5. Even if there was consensus, it wouldn’t be worth much. Due to fact 1, many in the field predicted an ice age. After Katrina, many predicted an increase in hurricanes due to global warming; there has been a huge decline.

6. Climate models are not good at predicting past temperature changes, let alone future changes. Many important variables, e.g., the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere and the level of radiation emitting from the sun (which does vary) do not factor in most all of these models. Historical data on the former, at least, is extremely thin, but water vapor nevertheless captures much more heat than carbon. The most important variables therefore do not make it into the models.

Finally, man-made or not, global warming is not a problem. The following graph illustrates that we are at a relatively cool period in the history of human civilizations and that even more dramatic swings in temperature have occured in the past:

http://www.ispp-itsymposium.org.nz/papers/submiss_8/GlobalTemp.jpg

If bronze age people could survive a even bigger temperature changes, it should be a breeze for a civilization that can go to moon, transplant harts and make Chevy Volts to deal with whatever changes in climate come about.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

You could make America’s entire vehicle fleet EV and you will still import oil. I agree with #16.

With peak oil passing, CO2 emissions won’t be so important in 20 years. I do wonder how all the power plants will run when gas runs out though.

(Quote)
David L Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

OK … here’s a couple of charts for ya!

The first chart shows atmospheric C02 concentrations that have been found in glacial ice cores at Vostok, Antarctica. Concentrations of C02 over the past 400,000 years range from 180 to 300 ppm:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
Full article: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
Note that that data is being provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) – not some “liberal, green, granola eating environmentalist” (which I happen to be).

The second chart shows c02 concentrations at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii from 1960 to 2006. In 1960, C02 levels were at 315 ppm … now they surpass 380 ppm.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/CO2_data_mlo.svg

Does anyone else see a trend?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Global warming is getting to be like religion. If you argue about it, nobody wins.

What everybody can agree on is that importing 2/3 of our oil is a bad thing. It helps fund terrorism, and it’s a big drain on our economy.

We also have to sit by swallow all the idiotic rhetoric of leaders from several oil-rich countries, which diminishes our stature on the world stage. Strategically, we are extremely dependant foreign oil, which is a bad thing.

And for those people who do believe in global warming, running on electricity (even electricity made from coal) produces significantly less carbon emissions than a gas engine.

So whatever you believe, E-REVs are good things.

A prime example of how people from all different beliefs can come together on this issue is “Set America Free” coalition:
http://www.setamericafree.org/
“A COALITION of tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, cheap hawks, and evangelicals.”
(R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA)

So let’s stop arguing about global warming and start discussing the Volt again…

(Quote)
pdt Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

#63:

That’s exactly the thing to look at. We are doing an experiment on the planet. The fact that the current rate of increase in CO2 levels has not happened as far as we know at any time in the past is really scary. We don’t know what is going to happen. It could be no big deal, but it could be far worse than anyone is predicting.

Let’s just agree that we are currently doing a planet-wide experiment and talk about if that is a good idea. Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea and we should work quickly to stop this experiment. That is one thing the Volt could help do.

(Quote)
Wise Golden Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

65, we’ve seen the charts. We saw them 40 years ago when we were heading into an ice age. We’ve seen them throughout our lives predicting an assortment of disasters that just don’t materialize. You’ll have to forgive my sceptical nature at this point in my life.

I’m still waiting on California to drop into the ocean. I’m still waiting on the ice age. I’m still waiting on the ozone layer to disapear. I’m still waiting on the drowning storms caused by GW. 65, the list goes on and on. I could do this all night. I’ve spent the last half of a century being 4 years away from some environmental armagedon that just has not come. You see, we’re not suposed to be here. We should have starved by now because of over population had the scientist been right. We should be on a snow covered planet with glaciers that extend to the mason-dixon line — if the scientist were right. We should have already had the nuclear war that your type was convinced was days away, for decades. Again, I could just keep going all night — I’ll just stop.

Here’s the thing — good scientist work on teaching at higher univesities, medical research, drugs, healthcare, weapons, cars, batteries, tv’s, space flight, Jet aircraft, ship building, oil exploration, and stuff like that — stuff that pays money. Those that can’t get that type of job go into our lower universities and spend their entire workday trying to make this armagedon stuff seem real. They lack the skills to actually prove, and then they become frustrated by those who require proof.

9:1 — that’s the ratio of scientific consensus on GW. 9 out 10 scientist do not agree with GW.

So, can you just cut us a break and let us have our opinion about GW while we look forward to the Volt and creating an energy independent nation?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

#59, David L,

OR, we could have good government / corporate policy so that we smoothly transition from foreign oil to domestic renewable energy, and no one would have to sacrifice anything.

The most frightening aspect of this whole arguement is liberals INSISTANCE that everyone be PUNISHED for having used oil. It betrays their social immaturity behind their thin veneer of sophistication. Tax? What the hell good is that, when the government / corporations aren’t providing a viable alternative?

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

“Jason M. Hendler

#59, David L,

OR, we could have good government / corporate policy so that we smoothly transition from foreign oil to domestic renewable energy, and no one would have to sacrifice anything.”

**** ******

The problem is that this “good government” has been lobbied to death by big oil. It may not be enough once the Volt launches and other manufacturers follow suit, because that will really start the grass roots. However, it sure explains why in 2008 we still don’t have electric cars, and millions of dollars in research funding has been provided for of all things…Hydrogen!

(Quote)
PaulR Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Rob #13,

Why are you trashing Toyota? Granted they mostly advertise their big V8’s that are some of the worst gas guzzlers on the planet, and they have publicly dissed GM’s Volt/Eflex concept.

But hey, Toyota also made the Prius a success, which helped wake the GM management team out of their long coma. So partially because of Toyota, GM now appears to be listening to customers and actually asking people what they want. Two big steps in the right direction IMHO.

(Quote)
Jean McCabe Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

I am dying to go to the auto show at the Javits Center. Can you get me a pass? Your website is very interesting. I love it. Keep it up; the comments are terrific; there is a lot of interest in it. Jean

(Quote)
Jimmy Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Bob Lutz is entitled to his opinion.

I don’t know if the whole global warming thing is true or not. The reason I want a volt is to help reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil and help our economy, trade deficit, etc. If it also helps the environment …then that’s an added benefit.

We have discussed why people want a Volt in the past and we came up with about a dozen reasons. Every one of them is valid and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Debating which reason is better or worse is pointless. Many posters have said before …one thing we all have in common is we want to see the Volt produced. I like the way Bob Speaks his mind. I would have him do that then tell everybody what they want to hear all of the time.

(Quote)
Patriot Pete Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am

I don’t care if he thinks the moon landing was a crock of shit or he believes in alien abductions! I am spending $800 a month on gas and will be sitting behind the wheel of a prius soon if this thing does not get built. We don’t need more Hummers or Suburbans or Tahoes (they are nice though). What I need is something made in the U.S.A. that gets 50+ mpg. If half of the people drove cars like this we would cut the gasoline use in half or even more in the next 5 years. Please…just make the damn car!!!

(Quote)
LB Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:27 am

http://www.autoshowny.com/

http://www.javitscenter.com/events/default.asp?month=2&year=2008

(Quote)
matt986 Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:40 am

I think this topic relates to the three different kinds of people that will be interested in the Volt:

People who believe CO2 emissions contribute to global warming, and want to do something about it.

People that want to reduce or eliminate our nation’s dependence on foreign petroleum.

People who want to reduce CO2, and eliminate foreign energy dependence.

I am the second. I do not believe mankind has a significant effect on the global climate, and I think it’s arrogant to believe that we understand it enough to make a positive determination. I personally believe that the planet goes through cycles, but why and how, we do not know.

I also like asking global warming zealots… “If global warming is caused by CO2 emissions from humans, why are the ice caps on Mars melting?”

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am

73matt986,

You forgot those who want to reduce their gasoline bill. I suspect that people will recoup the higher price for an E-REV over a few years of using 80% less gasoline, as documented in this presentation:

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am

Global warming is a cynical initiative sponsored by very large companies who will profit from pollution controls, alternative energy technologies, new nuke plants and etc goings on. In past years we’ve seen similar schemes using PCBs, EMFs and other tactics that will cause markets to churn out profits.Gee, I wonder what type of companies would support such actions?

(Quote)
Larry Parylla Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 10:12 am

I agree with him I want the car to cut back on our dollars being sent overseas to pay for oil. I have no doubt there is global warming but there is no proof or any evidence it is man made. I am convinced it is part of earths natural cycle and linked to the suns activity. I own a Hybrid and people assume I am concerned about global warming but nothing could be further from the truth. We need to cut our dependence on foreign oil.

(Quote)
Jason The Saj Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am

Global Warming:

> Yes, there are signs that we’ve been warming. But is CO2 the cause? Questionable…and there are MANY scientists who question this fact.

> Mars & Pluto have also showed signs of warming. Obviously, the two solar powered rovers on Mars must be emitting tons of CO2. Many astronomers have expressed that solar activity and sunspot patterns are having a significant effect as well.

> There used to be an ocean in the middle of America. The Gulf of Mexicon almost made it up to Canada. So obviously, this is the hottest it’s been…EVER!…Al Gore told me so…er…wait, but we used selective data. And even white noise data came out hockey stick.

> Pollution is bad, we need to move to clean renewable energy sources and reduced manufacturing waste. Regardless of global warming or not. We should be doing this!

> CO2 alarmism makes for lots of “business” on CO2 credit sales. Big big money. It’s also pushed aside almost every other environmental issue. In fact, the loss of biomass (rainforests cut down for 2×4’s and grazing, farm fields turned into paved malls & housing developments) are probably the #1 man-made influence in climate conditions. And probably the #1 man-made danger to the environment (especially to animal preservation). This is now all but ignored as an issue thanks to CO2. For example, we downplayed the environmental impact of President Bush preserving a vast waterway that contained 70% of the coral reefs in the U.S.A.

> Al Gore got awards for his stance on the environment. But lived a licentious life with a house that consumed a neighborhood’s environmental resources. He’s profited off the environmental cause and hyper-politicized it.

> Dumb liberals who instead of reaching across the aisle make war. Versus smart liberals like Cousteau who reached across to President Bush, presented the issue in a way that related to the President – the result is a new National Park that is larger than all of the rest of the parks combined. Look at how the guy who once headed the Sierra club and now works for Walmart has been demonized. But if he can get Walmart to reduce their footprint by just 5%, the savings will be immense. People demonize GM instead of encouraging them. If you say, “I’m never going to buy a Volt because it’s GM”. Then why should GM build it? You should be saying, “Wow, I never thought I’d ever consider a GM product. But GM, you might have a winner with the Volt. Never thought I’d see the day where I could become a GM customer.” Then GM says, hey, this is good. People who we lost as potential customers are interested in this path we’re taking. That means, not only might we sell this to our recurring buyers – but we might gain new buyers. This is WORTH our investing in.

ENVIRONMENTALISTS…..please think smart, not political…encourage, don’t demonize…because every time you do the latter two options – you hurt our cause. You destroy the environment because you cause division and strife instead of acting like a small rudder that helps to turn the ship in the right direction. You don’t do that thru hate, criticism, vitriol, insult….you do that thru positive re-inforcement and constructive criticism.

(Quote)
Larry Parylla Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 10:23 am

February 14th, 2008 at 6:48 am

I hate to get into a warming debate but there have been many people that have with actual degrees in the subject that have come out against the junk science Gore, who has no formal studies or earned no degrees on the subject, has come out with. Most of the people in agreement with Gore depend on federal grants for their paycheck so they have to agree or their money will be cut off. I don’t really care what the reason behind buying a Volt is, the important thing is getting it built and having a list of people ready and willing to buy it.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am

Global Warming is caused by humans. With such an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, agreed to by the world’s governments, anyone or any organization attempting to delay, deny, confuse or get in the way of large-scale action at this point would be at the least embarrassing themselves with such a grand scale of delusion and ignorance and the most would be bordering on a crime against humanity.

Those who deny it have hidden plans. Such as profit from use of fossil fuels or simply want to spread disinformation for their own pleasure. Please everyone go out and knowledge yourselves on this issue, its not going away anytime soon. The longer we argue the more our future slips away!

(Quote)
Bob Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Everyone who argues that other planets have CO2 and that our planet had a ton of CO2 in the past but want to deny we’re causing global warming are complete idiots. YES our planet goes through phases where CO2 rises naturally and so does the temperature BUT no where in our planets history has CO2 increased so drastically compared to the last 100 years! I wonder what has been so different the past 100 years? Oh yeah we burned a shit ton of FOSSIL FUELS. Doesn’t take a scientist to realize that pumping all that wonderful smoke into our atmosphere isn’t going to do something. I dare everyone single one of you to go L.A., CA. Let the beautiful air burn your lungs and eyes, thats called SMOG caused by CARS. Wow humans couldn’t possibly be strong enough to cause the environment to change? Are you serious? OPEN YOUR EYES. For everyone who thinks burning fossil fuels can’t hurt the environment please go to your garages, keep it closed, turn on your car, ENJOY. Thats exactly what our environment goes through every time you drive your car. It gets to suck on all of those awesome fumes.

p.s. I’m buying a boat since the water by my house keeps rising due to most of you idiots not believing in global warming. THANK YOU FROM FLORIDA.

(Quote)
Jill Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Why is it still being argued that humans aren’t causing global warming, do you people not educate yourself? Go to any reliable news site and you’ll find endless amounts of articles:

It’s real and we’re the problem, step up and make a change!

113 Nations Agree: Climate Change ‘Very Likely’ Caused by Humans

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070201_ap_climate_report.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302204_warming02.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html

(Quote)
bob martin Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Bob Lutz is right. The global warming hysteria is more of a religion of polically correct, media doped idiots. There is certainly warming, and this warming and cooling has cycled at least 15 times with no help (or CO2) from us. The emphasis, he correctly points out, should be oil usage, and all the political and economic impacts they portend. Gee, Greenland was actually green once. back 900 years ago when it was warmer.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

bob martin you’re a complete idiot, lol

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Jason M. Hendler #52

“The worst part of liberals using these scare tactics, is that they don’t offer an solutions to maintain current lifestyles at no additional cost. Liberals are the laziest policy makers ever – for every problem, they suggest a tax, which solves nothing.”

I fear I agree with Jason.

“Only the truly brilliant can offer policies that will maintain or improve current lifestyles at no additional cost.”

And I fully agree with this.

It is for that reason that helping the Volt to get out and adopted by many is better than CO2 taxes when we have no alternatives.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I sent a further e-mail to my Senators asking them to have staff monitor this blog. I sure hope they don’t see this thread How embarrassing.

Lyle:

Maybe Mr. Lutz would like to offer his thoughts on evolution. You could probably generate 2 or 3 hundred comments on that.

(Quote)
Larry Parylla Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

February 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Tim

Why is is necessary to resort to name calling when you can’t get a person to agree with you?

We all want the same thing for diffrent reasons so why must you call anyones names? I am old enough to remember the warnings of a comming ice age back in the 70’s. I beleive it is getting warmer but it has not been caused by man.

(Quote)
Wise Golden Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

When did liberals become so closed minded? Doesn’t the word itself mean something along the line of “open to new thought?” Now, if you disagree with a liberal, they call you an idiot, or they tell you to get educated, but just try and get one of them to look outside of their click of information on any subject — it’s just not possible. They present biased web-site after biased web-site as proof, but not one of them is willing to see what other material is available on the subject. The conservatives who argue against the reality of GW have seen the information that is presented as proof — it’s shoved down our throats daily, but none of the liberals have seen the information that counters GW and the very thought of doing so would be like trying to get a Christian to attend a Satanic Mass — it aint going to happen.

Because that’s what GW is to the liberals — it’s a religion. They have no faith in a real God, a creater of the universe that built the Earth to be in balance, so they must try to be in control themselves — a rediculas notion to me, or to any of the worlds faithful. And then they get onto the subject of evolution and how dumb we are for our beliefs in intelligent design. The liberals are like nazis and if you’re not in lock step with their doctorin, you’re an enemy to them — a threat that needs to be marginalized. They don’t deserve to call themselves liberal, because thay are in fact, the opposite.

I would caution any liberal person who believes him or herself to open-minded that they are indeed not a liberal if they are open minded. They might be moderate, but they don’t fit with this leftist group that defines itself as liberal or progressive. And trust me, I understand that there are plenty on the far right who are just as bad in a different direction.

So what does that make the liberals, and for that matter, the ultra conservative? I would say they are “absorbed” in the world — and that’s not a compliment.

(Quote)
Mike756 Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

You can go here for a little climate sanity:

http://www.climateaudit.org

There is a huge amount of material there, but if you spend the time you will see many of the problems with the catastrophic AGW theory.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

#68, Grizzly,

It is the right of every citizen to petition their government to address grievances. This right is manifested through the use of lobbyists, who understand the proper method by which this is done.

As for hydrogen, it is in the longterm plan by which GM intends to displace petroleum 100%:

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf

E-REV’s only get you to 80% displacement.

(Quote)
DrG Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

I really do not understand how so many people can question the existence of anthropomorphic global warming.
Are the disinformation campaigns that effective?
Is it whistling in the dark?
Anybody have a theory?

(Quote)
Larry Parylla Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

I don’t think people question it. I like many others question the cause along with doubting the extent of the damage it will to our planet. I think that there are many natural factors such as the suns activity that are a bigger factor than car emissions. Does it really matter what I want to buy a Volt? We all want the same thing but we have different reasons. Why don’t we all focus on what we agree on rather than fighting amongst ourselves. I have never seen people that all want the same thing fight so much.

In the words of the great leader Rondey King “can’t we all just get along?”

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Jason #90

It is most often special interest groups and large corporations who use lobbyists to influence congress, not individual citizens. Lobbyists don’t work for free.

I believe that the only reason GM has hydrogen on it’s roster is that they are not only receiving funding earmarked for it, but they want to keep their options open. That very funding is probably borne out of the big oil lobby. I don’t believe with the certain advances in electric storage they honestly see hydrogen as viable down the road.

(Quote)
David L Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Wow! What an interesting array of thoughts and viewpoints. There appears to be two phrases that show up repeatedly: “global warming” and “liberal”. I have a few comments on both:

Global Warming is a misnomer. A better term is “climate change” which indicates that the climate is changing – rather than necessarily getting warmer. Climate change suggests that some parts of the world will get warmer while others will get colder. With increasing heat energy in the atmosphere and oceans, the prevailing winds and ocean currents shift from their historical patterns – causing changes to temperature, precipitation, and other weather. Climate change has been occurring since the beginning of the earth … the question is if current climate change has been influenced by humans.

Liberal is a word that appears to have different meaning to different people. For some, it describes the “extreme radical left” while for others is suggests “progressive” or “broad-minded”. Ironically, in Canada the federal “Liberal” party is considered mainstream – with Conservatives to the right and (New) Democrats to the left.

I suspect that most people like to think of themselves as being broad minded, and seeing that range of reasons that people want to see the Volt come to production – hopefully we can each be broad minded enough to respect each others point of view.

(Quote)
Larry Parylla Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

But with H we can get rid of gasoline. I plan on getting the Volt and expect to drive from SC to NY and back 3 to for times a year, I will almost never need fuel at home but it would be nice to burn H instead of gas on those trips.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

#93, Grizzly,

Regardless of price / reason, lobbyists are a constitutional right, so focus your angst against corporate / government policy makers. Lobbyists and corporations do what they do, but that doesn’t mean government servents must bend to their will.

Hydrogen will predominantly be an aviation / maritime fuel, if/when CO2 legislation gets applied to those industries. Until rapid recharge batteries, and their requisite power filling stations are built out, only hydrogen (and compressed air) provide rapid refill / long haul requirements for people / industries who feel “range anxiety”.

(Quote)
Derek Says:
February 16th, 2008 at 2:49 am

Tim:

OISM is a garbage hoax. Please examine your “sources” a bit more closely.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
February 16th, 2008 at 8:11 am

After the recent article in the British Scientific Journal that presented
the argument that the climatology data , while not denying global warming, does not support the idea that it has anything to do with the greenhouse effect – I have become skeptical about claims that carbon is the culprit – the idea that ground temps and upper atmosphere temps do not show the characteristic relationship that greenhouse warming should produce, leaves me waiting for a response from the carbon- is-the-culprit crowd to explain these contradictory effects. I haven’t heard any response and will not assume that carbon has anything to do with any global warming until I hear some convincing counterarguments. I haven’t heard any so far and am still waiting. I’m supporting electric drive for the same reason Lutz is – to avoid foreign oil and foreign control. If it also helps avoid global warming, then that would be another good reason.

(Quote)
Bryan Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 9:22 am

Who cares for what reason you want the Volt. Maybe you’re green. Maybe you’re a patriot. Maybe you’re just a techy. Please just build the thing so that it is affordable.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am

Bryan, #99:

Of course, you’re right. When you point it out, this is probably all good.

If so many people, with such wildly diverse opinions on these issues, all want the same product at the end, I guess it has to prove that the Volt’s time has come.

(Quote)
Jamie Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Bob Lutz has a disease that seems to affect many leaders these days … he can’t admit that he was dead wrong about folks wanting speed over fuel efficiency. Toyota and Honda have been eating General Motors’ lunch in California because Bob Lutz spent too much time listening to his fellow adrenaline addicts in a small room instead of recognizing the desire for less reliance on terrorists’ oil. I’m holding out for the Chevy Volt for my next car purchase – I’ve never owned anything but GM products so far, and I hope I can continue to support one of America’s great companies.

(Quote)
John Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

It’s good to see the many people that are in support and waiting for the Volt, I myself can’t wait to have one also. I also wish to thank the many that support GM, and in the same sense support the American Auto worker. There are many of us young, and wanting to do nothing but please our customers and take care of our families.

I want to see more generations have the opportunity to be a part of building American vehicles. So I really hope that GM will continue on a path that makes our customers #1 as I wish for all of you.

Thank you.

(Quote)
GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site » Blog Archive » Bob Lutz Reponds on the Recent Crock of Global Warming Comments Says:
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 am

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

Bob Lutz Turns up the Heat on Global Warming

103 Responses to “Bob Lutz Turns up the Heat on Global Warming”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts