GM Car Czar Bob Lutz Takes the 5th on "Crock of Shit" Global Warming Crack, Then Blames Sunspots

by Edward Niedermeyer

September 20th, 2008 10:02 AM

gm car czar bob lutz takes the 5th on crock of shit global warming crack then

Forget the Colbert Report, the real comedy arrives when Maximum Bob comes in contact with uncontrived Canadian earnestness. George Stroumboupoulos gazes deep into the Car Czar’s eyes and asks him “what happened to the North American auto business,” with all the bewilderment the question deserves, Lutz fumbles around a bit before hitting the punchline. Not enough taxes! Seriously folks, the lack of European-style taxation and investment in mass transit created a “Darwinian Environment” in which people demanded large V8 vehicles. But Mr Lutz, didn’t Detroit benefit from cheap gas? And what do you say to those who accuse automakers of colluding with Big Oil? “If there is a conspiratorial relationship between the oil companies and the automobile companies, could we see our 50 percent please?” deadpans Lutz. Ba-doom-boom! Anyway, GM does sell small, high-technology, high-efficiency cars– in Europe. ‘Cause Americans won’t pay for them. Having “just looked at the numbers,” Lutz said the average Swiss transaction price on GM products was $42k. Switzerland? When George confronts Lutz with his “global warming is a crock of shit” quip, MB lashes out at his quotee and insists he must “plead the fifth amendment.” “You’re in Canada!” George reminds MB, and then draws the Czar into his sunspot rant. Up next: Vegas! [Thanks to emro for the link]

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 51 comments

Blindfaith on Sep 22, 2008

Does anybody ever suggest that the increase in temperature is a good situation? Does anybody consider the fact the if we moderated a long term cooling trend by an artificial increase in temperature, that people would be better off because we warmed the planet. The man kind induced warming could neutralize the natural cooling cycle and save many millions of lives through starvation and exposure. How come nobody writes a good paper on this and sends it to the weather channels?

Like Reply
Blastman on Sep 22, 2008
psarhjinian : … From davidsuzuki.org: …. “To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.” psarhjinian : Are your reading comprehension skills so poor that you think Suzuki means that all 928 articles on climate change support the position of MMGW (man-made-GW)? Cannot you see that Suzuki is trying to mislead you here? This is what is so despicable and dishonest about so many of the environmentalist's out there -- they say things in manner to try and purposely mislead people. Suzuki is gaming you -- misleading you into believing all these papers support man-made GW -- when in fact they do not. You would probably be lucky to find 10 papers of that 928 that actually point the finger of GW on man-made release of CO2. Lets say all 928 of those papers agree that there is climate change. Lets say 10 of the papers actually point to man-made causes as the culprit. Well, Suzuki can say the consensus position is that climate change is happening … OR … is human induced, and say all the 928 papers at least takes one of those positions. Read that statement more carefully, the use of the word OR doesn't make it mean that all papers support MMGW. I can guarantee that only a very small fraction of the papers on GW/Climate change point the finger at man as the cause. The bureaucrats that were writing the summary report of the IPCC for the politicians in 1995 were up to the same dishonest shenanigans … http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html In 1995 IPCC presented its second report: The Science of Climate Change". In this report a large number of researchers work through hundreds of scientific reports and delivers a comprehensive report where they conclude that there is no evidence that human beings have had an influence on the climate. This conclusion is of course very important for politicians and policymakers around the world. But what happened? The editor of the IPCC report then deleted or changed the text in 15 different sections of chapter 8 (The key chapter concerning whether human influence exists or not) which had been agreed upon by the panel of contributors involved in compiling the document. In practice politicians and policymakers only read the so-called Executive Summary for Policy Makers. In this document consisting of a few pages it is clearly stated that humans have influenced the climate, contrary to the conclusions of the scientific report. Also read … Why I Recanted ...David Evans, Financial Post Published: Saturday, August 30, 2008 … http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=756766 'There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming' I devoted six years to carbon accounting when I built models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. … … 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

Like Reply
Blastman on Sep 22, 2008
psarhjinian : … From davidsuzuki.org: …. “To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.” psarhjinian : Are your reading comprehension skills so poor that you think Suzuki means to imply that all 928 articles on climate change support the position of MMGW (man-made-GW)? Cannot you see that Suzuki is trying to mislead you here? This is what is so despicable and dishonest about so many of the environmentalist's out there -- they say things in manner to try and purposely mislead people. Suzuki is gaming you -- misleading you into believing all these papers support man-made GW -- when in fact they do not. You would probably be lucky to find 10 papers of that 928 that actually point the finger of GW on man-made release of CO2. Lets say all 928 of those papers agree that there is climate change. Lets say 10 of the papers actually point to man-made causes as the culprit. Well, Suzuki can say the consensus position is that climate change is happening … OR … is human induced, and say all the 928 papers at least takes one of those positions. Read that statement more carefully, the use of the word OR doesn't make it mean that all papers support MMGW. I can guarantee that only a very small fraction of the papers on GW/Climate change point the finger at man as the cause. The bureaucrats that were writing the summary report of the IPCC for the politicians in 1995 were up to the same dishonest shenanigans … http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html In 1995 IPCC presented its second report: The Science of Climate Change". In this report a large number of researchers work through hundreds of scientific reports and delivers a comprehensive report where they conclude that there is no evidence that human beings have had an influence on the climate. This conclusion is of course very important for politicians and policymakers around the world. But what happened? The editor of the IPCC report then deleted or changed the text in 15 different sections of chapter 8 (The key chapter concerning whether human influence exists or not) which had been agreed upon by the panel of contributors involved in compiling the document. In practice politicians and policymakers only read the so-called Executive Summary for Policy Makers. In this document consisting of a few pages it is clearly stated that humans have influenced the climate, contrary to the conclusions of the scientific report. Also read … Why I Recanted ...David Evans, Financial Post Published: Saturday, August 30, 2008 … http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=756766 'There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming' I devoted six years to carbon accounting when I built models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. … … 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

Like Reply
on Sep 22, 2008

1944 and the Arctic was frozen over solid pre AGW and SUV's yet Henry Larsen took the St. Roch from Halifax to Vancouver in 86 days through the Northern Passage of the NW Passage. In 2008 the Northern Passage was froze over. This isn't the first time for low ice levels in the Arctic. http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions

Like Reply