Lutz: always entertaining
 

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/200...d-cars-as-art/
I have no problem with a "desire to replace imported oil" since the results are the same.

Bob Wilson

GM's Bob Lutz: Global warming is a "total crock of sh*t"
 

Re: GM's Bob Lutz: Global warming is a "total crock of sh*t"
 

I agree. Global warming is real, but:
#1 Man plays only a minor role
#2 Man cannot stop it
#3 Slowing down global warming by 1 degree F per century will cost every man, woman, and child on earth $1.4 million dollars over his/her lifetime.

#4 Wouldn't you rather put that $1.4 million per capita to better use?

That $1.4 million buys a lot of homes for the homeless, and a lot of food for the hungry. Plus, polar bears hate bitter cold. Just ask one. They thrive just fine in places like Denver, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Cold weather kills 14 times more human beings than any heat wave.
"Optimal" temperature for humans is 64'F to 68'F.
Guess how much of the world is below this. MOST OF IT.
:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Merged.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

We disagree with the idea that containing global warming would cost over a million dollars per person. Driving smaller vehicles, using energy-efficient lighting, and implementing conservative settings for heating/cooling will not only reduce the threat of global warming but also save money.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Given his age, Lutz probably won't be around long enough to see the consequences. But it really doesn't matter what he thinks.

The carbon problem will sort itself out soon enough as it looks like we're at peak oil now. There isn't a dang thing anyone can do about having 'burned it all up.' The impacts will soon enough settle the issue so I'm not too worried about it. For those who make a living selling systems that use oil, well they're going to need to find a better answer and some of us think we have.

Sit back and enjoy the show.

Bob Wilson

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

You need to look at the BIG picture.

Fighting global warming will cost Trillions of dollars.
That equals higher government taxes.
You WILL pay thou$ands more each year.

Fighting global warming will raise fuel prices.
It already has. There are over 130 different formulas of gasoline used in the U.S. alone. So instead of getting a "bulk price" on gas at $1.50, you ( and I ) are paying upwards of $3.00 a gallon for "custom made" fuel for just your city. All in the name of cutting carbon emissions.
Double the price of gas costs every person thou$ands more each year.

I've tried compact flourescent bulbs many times, and in many applications.
They are a poor choice IMHO. The quaility of light they give off is poor ( only a few wavelength, not a full spectrum of colors ) and they are expensive, and I have never ever, not once, had one last "10x longer than incandescent". Usually they cost 5x more, and last 2x longer. Some contain mercury. All contain posionous gas.
Okay, less dramatic, but this is costing the nation's people tremendous cash as a whole. CFB's cost each person up to hundred$ per year.

Smaller cars save you cash this week at the pump, but they may not save you money in the long-term... if you have to rent something large for vacations, or for deliveries, or heck, in general, smaller engines wear out sooner ( 10 years is good enough for most people, but larger engines last 20 or 25 years... ). Plus the companies that make steel and plastic will sell less of it. This means wage cuts, or job layoffs for you and me. This costs thou$sands of dollars per person. I know, it gets "complicated".

Research that goes into pie in the sky methods to combat global warming costs Billion$ each year! Wouldn't that money be better spent on health care, feeding the poor, or building more water reservoirs for our every growing cities? Should we really spend billions and trillions of dollars to try and change the weather that may, or more likely, may not work? Or should we put that money to use buliding infrastructure? ( that will for sure work )

You are paying much more than you think to fight a futile battle.
A young person now will need to donate $1.4 million of his/her income spread out over a lifetime to reduce the planet by 1 degree F.

What is the best use of that money?
What will help the most people, in the most dramatic way?
Lowering the weather 1 degree? Or curing AIDS and Cancer?
Building water reservoirs in dry areas? The list goes on and on.
The best minds in the world recently met and came up with 200 humane priorites, all more urgent than fighting global warming, and all at a fraction of the cost. I'll post the link... when I find it....

Peace,
-John

P.S. We all need to conserve our resources. We need to conserve for the RIGHT reasons. I don't care why you conserve, as long as you do. Now, when it comes to using cash out of pocket, there are hundereds of other more urgent, and more easily met human needs that can be met right now, other than Global Warming. I do not deny GW is real, just question its importance. You would be better off doing the same. I care about the environment as much, or probably more than most people. I am only trying to open people's eyes to areas not often discussed in the media.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

GPSMAN1 - should we just call you a troll and leave it at that?

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Global warming has an interesting history:

• Denial - until more data pretty well converted even the few remaining, Christy.
• Not man made - usually by citing volcanos, unsubstantiated orbital patterns or unsubstantiated solar activity
• Too expensive - there is not enough money to pay for what it takes

But over time, better data, most recently ice cores, tends to mute these objections except for "too expensive." But that one presumes the consequences of global warming are 'free.'

One consequence of global warming is to reduce the land mass by rising sea levels. This forces our species into more crowded conditions and like some of the earlier animal models, we're likely to see population reductions by war and starvation. But war and starvation may be cheaper than spending all the wealth of the world on dealing with global warming.

Personally, I see petroleum coming to an end soon as we're burning it up as fast as it can be pumped, peak oil. Soon enough the shortages will drive us to coal liquification and bio-fuels. But in the meanwhile, there are huge quantities of legacy CO_{2} and it isn't going away very fast.

I have no illusions about my Prius carbon footprint versus my life carbon footprint. The Prius is insignificant in the big picture but it does impact my fuel costs, something I can address. I have no problem with global warming research simply it is intellectually challenging, like the study of black holes. Global warming research may lead to ways to reduce or even reverse CO_{2} while we make our planet a great place for the return of the dinosaurs.

Bob Wilson

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

I'd say so; pulling numbers out of his butt and substituting facts with opinions...nothing to see here...move along......

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Chris, let's be civil.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

I'd say my life view /experiences are EXACTLY opposite that of GPSman1.

Hmmm, go figure.

Oh well, here's to supporting those who want to help, to those who live and breathe and want to be more in balance with our little home called earth.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Therefore since you can infer so much from me, I infer you must:

Only care about yourself, you are short-sighted, pour your used motor oil down the river, burn styrofoam ( and inhale ), ask for extra cheese on that triple Whopper, use CFC hairspray, harpoon baby whales for sport, use bald eagles for target practice, leave the lights on 24/7, let infants play with plastic bags, drive your car to your own mailbox... warm up your car for 30 minutes in the driveway before needing to go some where... think being in Iraq is "helpful" to the people there... think being in Iraq is helpful to the people here... and probably helped the 9-11 hijackers learn how to fly? Is that correct? That's what you are leading me to believe.

Read some more of my other posts, (please)...
Cheers,

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Yes!

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Well I must applaud since that was the only correct response!
( there's a trace of humor alive after all )

You have averted a war of the words.
Since you took my comments none too seriously, I shall return the favor.
No harm no foul? :angel: -J

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

This is often the misguided critic against doing something about climate-change, I mean "man-induced" climate change. I would also add that any figures anyone pulls out to site the cost to fight global warming assumes that not fighting it would result in gradual change that man & civilization can cope with cheaper. Like all things in nature, when a system is in imbalance, it will readjust to a new equilibrium, often very quickly, and that often translate to catastrophically when it is global in scale.

Im afraid my kids will pay 10 times more than 1.4 million to fight the consequences of not doing something while we still can.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Let me know if I'm talking to a brick wall and I will stop.

We have lots of evidence, I would even say "proof" that the planet is warming.

Show me proof, or even evidence that this is bad for humankind?
More people on earth, 14 times as many in fact, freeze to death as "sweat to death".
It is irrelevent what happens to Polar Bears.
It is only relevant what happens to humanity.

Should humans intentionally harm polar bears? No. That is immoral.
Should humans intentionally preserve polar bears? No. Equally immoral.
If you don't understand the question, answer this:
Should humans "bring back" through technology, the Wooly Mammoth?
Is the planet worse without Wooly Mammoths?
Would the planet be better with Wooly Mammoths?

I say NO! The planet would be "different" with Wooly Mammoths.
Not better, not worse, just different.
The world will be different without polar bears, if it comes to that.
The world will not be worse.

Now, would all African childern be better off with clean drinking water?
Would all African children be worse off with less clean drinking water?
Or would the African children just be "different" without drinking water?

I'm saying we have much larger problems to fix BEFORE global warming.
I'm saying we have problems that could easily be fixed with 99% success rate, if the time, energy, and money spent towards reducing the planet 1 degree were applied.

The sick child with no clean water is not going to benefit from cooling the planet 1 degree. It's unlikely your child will gain anything from it either.

After we cure hunger and heath issuse, should we not then try to adjust climate? I think the planet can be "cleaned up" and warmed up at the same time to humaniy's benefit.

IMHO people with nothing other than GW on the brain have priorities way out of whack. After we cure the sick and feed the hungry, I'm all in favor of spending surplus money on global cooling.

Peace, Love, Happiness!
:angel:

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

I pretty much agree or think this global warming thing is over the hill and gone - we've passed the tipping point. Now that's my opinion, no facts, no citations.

I agree with you on the florescent lights. For 10 years I worked inside a window-less school and it was interesting to see all the teachers run outside at every chance to bathe in sunlight. Otherwise for SoCal and Florida, like that, those lights work ok because we have so much sunlight.

I wonder about your "A young person now will need to donate $1.4 million of his/her income spread out over a lifetime to reduce the planet by 1 degree F."

Just the economics of conservation should result in individual savings.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

Obvioulsly, not every person would be able to contribute literally more than a million dollars to counteract GW. But that is the real cost, per capita, on average. Obviously large corporations will have to pick up the slack and pay for more, ( taxes, tariffs, fees, etc. ) and pass that cost along to the consumers in increased prices for goods and services. The increased cost of doing business may slow trade at addtional cost to the consumer, and increased prices may deny the poor from receiving some goods and services.

Here is an example, I don't claim it is the best example, just one I found quickly. Taken from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

The magazine Environment May, 2000 had an article on how we can buy a recyclable toothbrush to "take a bite out of landfill use". At $17.50 for a 4-pak each comes with a recycling mailer, such that the used toothbrush may be returned and made into outdoor furnature. The important question is: how important will this toothbrush be in reducing landfill?

If every person in the U.S. replaced every toothbrush with this one, it would reduce landfill by by 20,000 tons. Sound significant? In 2000 the U.S. sent 220,000,000 tons to landfill. It is estimated each person generates 4.44 pounds of garbage per day. This toothbrush reduces the average to 4.439 pounds per day.

This does not even consider the added environmental effects of the postal system handling another half a billion packages a year [ or the cost and effects of making half a billion return envelopes ]. The cost is huge, while the benefit seems slight at best.

So you guys on here tell me. What's the real cost/benefit ratio of recycling a toothbrush? You could extend this analogy to countless other items. Before long, you've spent your entire salary, and have little, if any environmental advantage to show for it.

-John

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

No harm, no foul.

I will agree to disagree.

I will continue my end of conservation and recycling. You do your end, anyway u like. It's not as if we don't want similar things, right? Clean air and water is great. Avoiding soiling our house, that's always good. Well, it's all words.

I've several opinions and am always curious how other's form theirs.

Cheers,

Curt

PS No environment, no future. Period. Know and balance with the environment, know a future.

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

My my, lots of disdain have we...?

Somehow I dont disagree with anything you say, I just disagree with how you seem to think your priority in doing your part to help with today's problem is the best way (...if not stated, it sure comes across like it). I can easily use your own argument against the use of ethanol: "I say we have much bigger problems to fix before FOREIGN OIL IDEPENDENCY <ie ethanol and hydrogen>" like clean water for african children, etc, etc.

Argument by citing degree change in temperature is detrimental to the issue of climate change (unless that's your intent). It's little changes in a global scale that would have devastating effects, ESPECIALLY to the poorest part of the world who do not have the resources to cope when adjustment occurs.


Wow, let's lump everyone who tries do what they can for our environment and the issue of climate change as wacky. The more issues, including one of the more prominent in the psyche of Americans, right now, i.e. GW, the better for the world in general. Not everyone can be Brad&Angelina for Africans, but everyone can collectively reduce waste and be more energy efficient (including big business and government) when Climate Change is on their mind. Saving the polar bears is not a goal to spend wasteful resources on itself, but by knowing that and put it forefront makes us more aware that we are incrementally destroying our environment, and allows us to do our little bit to amend, that collectively, can help, in more than one goal, I might add.

Love, Peace, Happiness!
(hey, same wants, just different ways)

Re: Lutz: always entertaining
 

This sounds almost like Zeno's Paradox in which an arrow is launched towards its target. Along the way it must pass through an infinite number of points, as a result, the arrow never gets there. Now we know that doesn't happen. Hence a paradox. I guess those Greeks with their slave labor were left with a lot of time to think of such matters.

I think many cities or communities have recycling programs. One benefit is the landfills for garbage fill slower, irrespective of GW. Those tooth brushes? I would toss them into the recycler.

Everything costs. Nothing goes for nothing.

When I was growing up in Chicago we would recycle incandescent light bulbs - when ours burned out we (or I) would take them to Commonwealth Edison and exchange them for fresh. Somewhere along the line that became to burdensome to CE, and the exchange was dropped. So we bought the bulbs and when they burned out we tossed them and bought more.

I look at the price of ethanol at this time as the, Bait. . . Down the line, when we Switch - that's when the price will increase because, although corn is renewable, it can and will become scarce. Food producers which has been using high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener will begin jacking their prices up as the increasing scarcity of corn ripples outward.

The price of milk will climb as the price of corn increases to the dairy herds. Eventually those dairy farmers will find it too costly to continue in business. As each herd becomes tomorrow's school lunch, the price of milk will increase.

For me? I think I'll take my ethanol in a merlot.