GM's Dark Ages Approach to Global Warming

General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz recently called global warming a "total crock of s--t." So much for intelligent leadership, but thanks for giving America a clear explanation of why your company is struggling with daily layoffs and market share implosion. Why does GM keep someone around who's still stuck in the dark ages while everyone else -- including its competition -- has woken up to the threat of global warming and its impact on their customers?

Lutz stands by the remark despite widespread criticism, but says it's not about what he thinks, it's about what the company is doing. Well let's reflect for a second on how GM is doing under the likes of his pig brain leadership. Not too well. If you're the guy who makes the same old inefficient product, and everyone is lining up for the competition's cutting edge technology, then wouldn't you want to improve as quickly as possible? Apple didn't keep making first generation iPods, they continuously improved to stay competitive and keep their customers happy. It is exactly the kind of arrogance displayed by Lutz that has practically sunk his company, which continues outsourcing its once proud factories and American jobs, and still can't remain competitive against Toyota and others.

How embarrassing for the Board of Directors and shareholders that the company's product development "leader" is so far behind the science, public opinion and the competition's pace in developing the next generation of efficient vehicles. Can someone explain why GM keeps this guy around? If your head is stuck in cement, how is that going to inspire anybody?

Maybe it's time for a change. It's hard to imagine this is what's best for GM and it's definitely not what's best for America.

stopglobalwarming.org

Comments

[ADR]

"...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down..."

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

I think Ms. David and Mr. Gore are getting a little worried right now. The source of their income and fear-mongering is starting to turn the other way. It'll be interesting to see what the next few years look like, considering that the peak temperature topped out in 1998 and has been heading *down* ever since. How can that be?

What are they going to do when they can't blame global warming 100% on man, particularly the United States and George W. Bush? How will they scam people ...er.. I mean, make a living? Who would have thought the SUN just might have something to do with global warming (and now cooling)? AMAZING! Let's wait and see, shall we?

[Wombat]

So GM managers think that Global Warming is "total crock of s--t." Let's call this Cro Magnon Capitalisim. ( Give the beligured Neanderthals a break )

[rockymountainhigh]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Hmmmmm....who is living in the dark ages?

[timothe]

You beat me to it, Rocky.

The scientists interviewed for the story seemed to think that the sun is the most determining factor in global climate changes.

Imagine that!! The sun causes temperatures to rise. Lack of sun...or being a greater distance away from the sun causes cooling.

Brilliant!!! (Time for another Guiness!!)

[GuyRC]

They have 3 names, one of which denies ever saying he was skeptical of greenhouse gas/global warming. They have Tim Patterson who is known to be funded with laundered money from oil companies:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/175673

That leaves the Russian and he wasn't actually interviewed.

[GuyRC]

You are living in the dark ages:

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/02/canadian-scientist-denies-denying.html

[rockymountainhigh]

Your link doesn't work....kinda like the global warming theory, no?

[timothe]

Again...Here's the money quote from the article:

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

I'm sorry, but this proves once again that man has very little to do with the atmosphere. The sun is and will remain, the most powerful influence over climate. If the sun decides to draw the Earth significantly closer someday, then we're fried. If the sun pushes the Earth away, then we freeze.

We...man have no ability to control the atmosphere...positively or negatively. That's the long and the short of it. So we can stop it with the carbon offsets any day, m'kay?

[GuyRC]

The temperature change this year isn't proof of anything. Climatology is a long-term modeling science not a short term temperature based science. Who wrote that quote that says the temperature dropped precipitously? The use of the word 'precipitously' makes me suspect that we are looking at more oil-company PR junk-science.

If the temperature goes up a tenth of a degree a year average for 100 years but drops 2 degrees in one of those years is that evidence of global cooling?

[GuyRC]

One other point, that graph in the article. It is from the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Have you been to their website?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

Not much global cooling news there. Here is their latest news top headline:

Recent reports from scientists at Stanford University suggest that climate change could cause severe crop losses in south Asia and southern Africa over the next 20 years.

[Guitarsandmore]

"If your head is stuck in cement, how is that going to inspire anybody?"

GMs is not trying to inspire anyone. They keep their employees in line with threats and demands for loyalty.

Some of GM employee requirements have included:

If you work for GM you must own a GM car or your employment will be terminated.

Hair must be worn short and trimmed at all times or be terminated.

[belladawna]

oh. my. god. i'm gonna say this and i'm NOT speaking for laurie, but i'm sure she'll get a laugh outta my reply here(if she even reads these).

if you people even clicked on the flippin url laurie posted, you'd have seen and READ that she knows about the volt.. it's clearly HIGHLIGHTED in the article *chuckles to self*

oh and btw, i'm sure if you people were really wiki'ing her then you'd have known she drives a hybrid. i have a measly certif. in forensic science looking into pursuing environmental science, and my point is, is that if you're going to accuse someone of something make damn well sure the person isn't already ahead of your attacks and already said in a few published articles that she DRIVES A HYBRID. *falls on floor laughing*.

it's a "crock of SH*T" for even trying to say it's about the money. d'uh, yeah, that is obvious. car companies want to sell cars. hybrid cars are in. period. with people not wanting to make a "small change" due to their non-belief in global warming or climate change, they don't want to even consider the option. all well in good, but when a baby needs food are you going to get the cheap food or something that costs a little bit more but will be better for the child's health in the long run? you tell me?

[dave]

Car Companies are a true threat to the planet and should be treated as such.

[Rockyman]

It is the combination of the arrogance you mentioned and wishful-thinking that have undermined the American automaker. Their egos have a hard time admitting that they were wrong about the desires of the evolving consumer. They even blamed insurance-costs of employees that drove up sticker-prices and therefore consumer away.....poppycock! They "wished" this was still pre-70's when gas was cheap and we were naive about our carbon impacts. Lutz has a V-8 brain in an age that demands "smaller,lighter" and propelled by "greener" energy.

[joja]

Oh, Ms. David, you're so naive.

You really believe that companies like GM exist to make a product that the public WANTS?! Why, nothing could be further from the truth, which is why you sound confused.

Detroit has been giving the American consumer what Detroit wants him/her to have for decades. Yes, we've always had a choice -- just as long as it was one the automakers picked.

For instance, the Big Three went before Congress in the 1960s and said it would be about 10 years before a marketable electric vehicle would be cruising along our highways.

Then, it was the 1970s, and they said the same thing. And again in the 1980s. And '90s. And so on.

Making an energy-efficient vehicle isn't cost-effective for Detroit, Ms. D. If people don't need or want a new car every 3-5 years, think what that would do for profits!!! As long as Detroit can keep making junk that requires a lot of maintenance and parts, and a product that wears out at a reliable clip, then they can stay in business a while longer.

It seems that the Big Three have thoroughly adopted the Cheney/Bush/Neocon philosophy -- don't fix it, especially if it's broken, 'cause there's more money to be made by trying to finesse a problem, than there is to actually solving it.

[eliandbo]

It is a shame, through total mismanagement, GM will buy out its best employees and replace them with lesser paid younger workers to provide the elite in the corporation with more money for their incompetence.
Why is it that Toyota and Honda are providing the people with the hybrid cars the people want and these over paid executives are making enormous sums of money instead of doing the required research into fuel efficient cars? Here come the illegals to fill the cheap paying jobs at GM.
With no decent paying jobs left in this country, the Army should have no problem with filling it's ranks.

[FrictionSoul]

Oh come on, Laurie, no need to insult pigs by calling him a pig brain.

[timothe]

Once again Laurie, I don't accept the premise. There's a whole bunch of people who say the debate about Global Warming is over when we've never had a debate about Global Warming.

How arrogant of man is it to assume we can harm the planet? Or that we can fix it? Especially considering all that we can't do.

1. We can't alter the weather. At all. Anywhere.
2. We can't predict the weather accurately beyond a few days.
3. We can't compare accurately compare the Earth's temperature over a few decades to determine trends in the atmosphere. Our methods for measuring temperature has changed dramitically.
4. We have no proof that CO2 is anything more than food for plants.
5. We cannot dissect one single part of man's footprint and state with 100% fact that it causes anything in the atmosphere to change.

There are many other questions we need to ask and answer before we frighten ourselves into drastic action. Let's have this discussion...in the open, with all sides having an equal voice. Then we can pick out the truth from the propaganda. OK?

[blfaul]

How arrogant it is for people to assume we don't have to worry about what we do to this planet. Are people finally no more than rabbits, who will continue to breed and use up all available resources until they experience population die backs?

You don't have to help, rabbit, just get out of the way of those who would try.

[BBackSoon]

I agree that we cannot prove 100% that man is altering the weather. But I think that we are well over 90% sure of it. When the 1000-year-old glaciers begin to melt we should at least take a good hard look.

I also agree that we should talk about global warming but it seems that the only people contesting the existence of global warming are in businesses that would have to make changes. Big Oil, Big Energy, Automotive. We would buy fuel-efficient cars if they would sell them as sexy the way they sell us SUV"s and muscle cars.

[radiojunkie]

you won't know the truth when it bites you in the ass, then you'll act like we didn't fix our problem soon enough.

[timothe]

Here's a little gem I pulled off Drudge today:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Here's the money quote from the article:

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

The article goes on to say that the last year's cooling was enough to offset the last 100 years of warming. Hmmm....

[GuyRC]

The article can say whatever it wants but Hadley, UAH, and NASA agree that greenhouse gases produced by man have dangerously enhanced global warming. Have you been to their websites? Who is Drudge, a person or a climate research center?

[Jonahson]

I am for the fight against gobal warming but we have to get our facts right. Example polar bears are not endangered by melting ice in fact the ice is returning as the same level as in year 2007 and polar bear is seen scavenging for food in inhabited areas as the ice sheet spreads.

[jimmyaj]

Lutz is such an idiot, it would really say a lot about GM's board if they DON'T fire him. And soon.

[Trittydi]

It is interesting - and it certainly hurts them - but personally, I wouldn't drive a GM unless someone gave one to me for free. That's the value I put on them.

*

[hank48188]

GM has 3 cars on the Car & Driver 10 BEST LIST, the Vette, the Chevy Malibu and the Cadillac CTS. No other maker has that many on the list.

[Rockyman]

And what qualifies a car to get "on the Car & Driver 10 BEST LIST"?

[eliandbo]

It is a shame, through total mismanagement, GM will buy out its best employees and replace them with lesser paid younger workers to provide the elite in the corporation with more money for their incompetence.
Why is it that Toyota and Honda are providing the people with the hybrid cars the people want and these over paid executives are making enormous sums of money instead of doing the required research into fuel efficient cars? Here come the illegals to fill the cheap paying jobs at GM.
With no decent paying jobs left in this country, the Army should have no problem with filling it's ranks.

[radiojunkie]

I said the same thing about Ford, then my sister gave me her Ranger for free. I still despise Ford, but love my sister even more.

[avicenna]

It's great to see that the American auto industry is catching up with the science. GM's science understudy is absolutely right - methane-producing shit is part contributor to global warming - GM is is the other part.... And looking beneath the surface - both feces producing organisms and GM vehicles have a lot in common - the bigger they are, the more full of shit they happen to be.

[BTN]

He is just responding to the growing groundswell (consensus?) of scientists that believe Global Warming is a natural process, and not principally caused by humans.

Check out all the science here and then come back with a real debate:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.demanddebate.com/

[MGhamma]

BTN, how many scientists are there in the world? My guess that it's a little more than 400. And of those 400 "scientists", you fail to mention that more than a few of them are economists.Now there's a reliable source of info. I've read some of the list,at least the parts that I've been able to find, and maybe 1 in 10 can even be remotely considered a climetologist. The '400' are a joke. So it's still up to you skeptics to bring a real debate. I'm still waiting.

[TimmySlagle]

Global Warming is over:
"Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

[McClellanKid]

"Global warming" is shorthand, a misnomer. It's really global climate destabilization, and the new "ice age" is part of it. Any reputable scientist will tell you that GCD is a series of catastrophes in the making, and anyone who thinks that man's enormous carbon footprint has nothing to do with it is late for his meeting of the Flat Earth Society.

[TimmySlagle]

"It's really global climate destabilization"

But if the snow cover is equivalent to what it was in 1966, it isn't destabilized-- it has returned to normal.