Lutz on Global Warming: "It's a Crock of Shit"

Frank Williams
by Frank Williams
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here
lutz on global warming it s a crock of shit

Sorry cubicle dwellers but the truth hurts. D Magazine reports that GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz told a group of journalists that global warming is "a total crock of shit." When pressed on his enthusiasm for the Volt, Maximum Bob explained "I'm motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2 (argument)." Yes but– MB wasn't so keen on on other automotive technologies aimed at diminishing our demand for foreign petrochemicals. Even though GM is touting their big, honkin' hybrid SUVs and hybrid-lite cars and spending multi-millions on a hybrid research center in China, he thinks hybrids "make no economic sense." GM's Vice Chairman of Global Product Development also stated diesel cars have no place in a market where gas and diesel prices are comparable (i.e. in the U.S.). And just to show solidarity with GM dealers facing GM's sliding market share and the current economic downturn, Maximum Bob said "they've got to isolate themselves from the economic forecasts and say, 'I make my own prosperity.'" Sounds like TTAC's leading candidate for our soon-to-be-announced Bob Lutz award may have been sniffing too much JP-8 or whatever imported-oil-based petrochemical he burns in his jets.

Frank Williams
Frank Williams

More by Frank Williams

Join the conversation
4 of 115 comments
  • Pch101 Pch101 on Feb 14, 2008
    I believe that, without regard to it’s merits, Global Warming is precisely a popularity contest with the added benefit of being a faith required of all the disciples who want to make a living in science. Just like all the scientists of yore were trained in the church, afraid to investigate certain matters, today’s academy acts in a less aggressive, but wholly similar fashion. To disagree is to be cast out, denied tenure, grants, and a livelihood. It may not be the inquisition, but it has a similar effect. I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no facts with which to defend this statement. Climate change has been studied to death. Virtually every study that has been subjected to peer review supports the position that it is happening, that it is man-made, and that it is detrimental. To believe otherwise is to akin to a whacko conspiracy theory, which is frankly just nuts. The global warming skeptics are much like the 9/11 "truth movement", which cooks up all sorts of odd suppositions and accusations based upon distortions and weird interpretations. To support the skeptics position requires a proactive need to ignore the research and willfully misinterpret it. I've seen examples of it in the comments section of this website, in one case when a poster provided a list of sources that allegedly contradicted the climate change hypothesis. Yet reviewing a sample of those articles showed that they not only supported climate change theory, but that their authors had taken clear positions in support of climate change -- in other words, precisely the opposite position claimed by the amateur skeptic (who probably cut-and-paste the list from some dubious source and had never bothered to read the articles for himself.) To appreciate these sorts of tactics, you'd have to run a tobacco company...
  • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Feb 14, 2008

    PCH, I guess we are about stuck again. This is not simple matter of "facts". It's a matter of how the system works. Science IS a popularity contest. Of course the majority of scientists refute this, they have done their best to cull the ones who don't go along for decades. Those who manage to get to a position without joining the herd, or who one day decide to reject the herd, are cast out and belittled. No one is immune. I have been a graduate student, and almost all my close friends have been. Many have multiple degrees. My mother works in the administration of a top university, where I spend a lot of time myself. I know of what I speak. I am of the age that I have now seen it a million times. Systems develop these situations time and time again, and very few people ever seem to be able to see it with or without hindsight. GW has all the symptoms of evolution, eugenics, enron, communist economics, the medieval church, and the subprime debacle. The system influences the actors and there is no strong check in the flow. It doesn't matter whether the information output is true or not, the information must be distrusted because the system producing it is flawed and corrupt. There are lots of studies that look plenty credible that debunk a lot of the previously accepted, peer reviewed ones. We hear about them all the time, and yes, a lot of the time the author then states that this does not refute climate change, only the one study. Why do you think they do that? So they will not be cast out. They should state no such thing and let the findings stand on their own merit. The beginning of the end for me was when a study came out claiming that among heterosexuals, men had more partners on average than women did. Clearly mathematically impossible, and it was months before it was withdrawn. That was over ten years ago, and my skepticism is reinforced the longer I live. We can't argue it, because I simply distrust ALL the sources. I try to conserve anyway, based on personal cheapness, an appreciation of efficiency, a dislike of waste, and a knowledge that CO2 being a problem or not, there are other pollutants that clearly are a problem. So, don't blame me for global warming. If you want to fix something, fix the Academy first. The results will be far more valuable than simply reducing carbon.

  • Bytor Bytor on Feb 15, 2008

    Science is only a popularity contest for those who don't understand science or even basic critical thinking. Unfortunately that number seems to be swelling. Since the dawn of the internet people have been getting more and more disconnected from critical thinking and for some reason swayed into believing many crazy ideas that don't stand any critical examination. Today more than 30% of people believe that Princess Di was murdered to keep her from marrying Dodi, the same goes for the numbers that believe the US government was involved in the 9/11 attack on it's own people. I think this phenomena happens because people with crazy ideas would be shunned in the past, but now on the internet you can quickly find a mob that will agree with you and crazy ideas instead of being weeded out, are encouraged to grow. There is a simple question I ask deniers that has them shout, change the subjet or walk away. They seldom ever attempt to answer because they are only interest in politicizing and muddying the science. Personally I see them as two separate issues. The science is clear. c02 is contributing to global warming, the question of what to do about it should be the politcal part. The question I ask is based on two simple undisputed facts. 1: C02 is a heat trapping gas. 2: We pump billions of Tons of C02 into the atmosphere every year increasing the concentration of C02 measurebly. The simple question is: how can more heat trapping gas in the atmosphere not result in more heat being trapped? The denier camp with its distrust of science, also seems to be in complete opposition to simple straight forward logic. People need to stop letting their idealogy short circuit thier thinking to the point that 1+1=3 if their percieved enemy says 1+1=2. 1+1 still equals 2 even if GW Bush or Al Gore says it.

  • Simonptn Simonptn on Feb 15, 2008

    Nice one Bytor. Thank god there is someone else out there who can see the forest and isn't concerned about what CO2 absorbing trees are in it. Oh wait ... too late ... they cut down the forest and planted corn to make ethanol. Fortunately I am old enough that, if I am lucky, I will probably be shuffling off this mortal coil just about when someone is going to be proved right. "I told you so" make good last words.