"You're in the bubble, Bob, you're in the bubble."

This was host Bill Maher's response to Bob Lutz's claim on Real Time this past weekend that there is no overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening. Lutz, a former General Motors chairman and not a believer in global warming, defended his point of view, even when scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson patiently explained that there are, indeed, scientific agreement and observable real-world signs that the world is getting warmer. He also explained that science rests upon consensus, but it's a consensus of experiments, not opinions. Lutz responded that he's heard for decades that the oceans will someday warm and rise, but he bought a home in the Florida Keys anyway. Then Tyson made a prediction of his own:

You take all the scientists who author these papers, get them to pool their money and invest in companies that would benefit from global warming. And take all the people who are in denial of global warming, take all their money and invest in companies that would presume there is no global warming. And I would predict, if you want a prediction, that you will all go broke in the next 50 years.

Lutz's reply? "I will predict exactly the opposite." See for yourself in the video after the jump.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 104 Comments
      sirvixisvexed
      • 2 Years Ago
      Very very ironic that Bob Lutz has done more to curb pollution by actually working for an automaker and actually "fathering" as they called it, the Volt; than the rest of the people on that show combined.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        Yes, Bob pushed for high power sports cars with big oldschool pushrod engines, and fought CAFE, was around when the Hummer came back into style and fought CAFE We all know that the Hummer is greener than a Prius. An independent non-partisan marketing group said so. All hail maximum Bob, Birkenstock environmentalist extraordinaire ;)
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 2 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        really? that's what you come away with from that? GM did the Volt as a panic damage control stunt. Bob is a first class ignorant as demonstrated here. he deserves no credit
          sirvixisvexed
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          Panic damage control? The Volt took several years to develop, I don't know where you get that one. I read almost every article on GM-volt.com from it's inception to its release. The Volt being a panic damage control stunt is a "crock of ****"
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          I think he did it more because he previously worked at a battery company (Exide) and he wanted to leapfrog Toyota somehow.
        JakeY
        • 2 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        Depends on how you look at it. I haven't looked much into the background of the guests, but I think besides from Tyson (who's an astrophysicist), the one's a journalist and the other is a political pundit. If they have been able to convince many people to reduce pollution or pushed policies that have done so, they may have done a lot more than Lutz to curb pollution.
        Neil Blanchard
        • 2 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        Did they continue to build the EV1? What about building the Precept and the UltraLite? Or about 1980 Epcot? What about voluntarily raising their CAFE to 35MPG, and then to 45MPG? Where is their answer to the Prius? Neil
          sirvixisvexed
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Neil Blanchard
          All of that is Bob Lutz's fault? Who made him your green slave and you the one who gets to sit and blog?
      marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      1998 -2010, the Western world experienced a vast new environmental movement replace the older conservation movement. This new movement was activist, politically aware and radical. With the demise of Warsaw pact nations, and abandonment of Maoist concepts in the PRC, the old radical left, the infiltrated the environmental Leftist ideologues struggled to find relevance in a a world that where socialist economic theories had become discredited. GW/CC was seized upon as a replacement for the old lost 'revolution'.! With skills honed in the old left, these new environmental advocates, unleashed a crusade of religious fervour, with the rhetoric to match! True scientist's, do not describe non-believers, as 'Evil"" Wicked" , or "Deniers" , these are not scientific terms, but political and religious demagogues. By 2011, the general public grew weary of endless alarmist rhetoric, and hectoring intolerance by GW/CC advocates. Joe Public began to realise that a vast gulf existed between the opinions of most reputable scientists, and the antics of radical GW/CC advocates. The Copenhagen conference debacle, saw a rapid decline in popular support for "green" policies, and "green' politics in general. All over the world, Joe Public began to realise that if the excessively dire warnings by some scientists, and GW/CC advocates, could prove to be so erroneous in the short term, what value should be placed on long term predictions, and conclusions? The list of short term predictions has been lengthy! This doesn't mean the science is wrong, simply the science has been exploited, and sensationally distorted for the purpose of political gain, and ideological fervour. The middle voter has turn off. Sick of being harangued, ignored, talked down to, abused and subject to supercilious demands for financial sacrifice, by people the ordinary voter has come to distrust and detest. Six years ago, a 'consensus" of world famous climatologists, proclaimed that GW was already so devastating that the arid condition of the Australian eastern seaboard, was irreversible. All dissent was shouted down. Vast amounts of money were spent on desalination facilities, and flood levees and dams were condemned as a waste of tax payer money and neglected accordingly. Fierce debates rage between the earnest 'green' movement, leftist governments. and climate change scientists on the one side, and farmers, country folk, and Sceptics on the other. Anyone disagreeing was shouted down and ridiculed as a denier! Today, that area has spent the last two seasons battling historic floods! Vast areas lie underwater, erosion and topsoil lost, environmental damage to the reefs and coastal areas. Lives and livelihoods lost. The climate devastation is indeed, man made, created not by pollution or greenhouse emissions, but by neglect and misspent taxpayer funding. Is it any reason why Joe Public would rather believe Bob Lutz !
        Matt Fulkerson
        • 1 Day Ago
        @marcopolo
        What a load.
          marcopolo
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Matt Fulkerson
          @Matt Fulkerson What a brilliantly erudite comment ! But, I appreciate all the thought you must have put in finding such an apt phrase to prove my point about the arrogance of some GW/CC supporters! Thank you, I couldn't have proved a better example.
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Matt Fulkerson
          you're a sick puppy marco
        mylexicon
        • 1 Day Ago
        @marcopolo
        I remember when we were taught that environmentalism was planting trees, recycling, conservation, and preventing pollution, especially oceanic pollution. Environmentalism was accessible. Now environmentalism is the government-induced redesign of the global economy. Environmentalism is not accessible.
          marcopolo
          • 1 Day Ago
          @mylexicon
          @ mylexicon This is a growing belief among the general population. Meantime, the 'green' community sits around hearing only what it wants to hear, sanctimoniously enjoying a 'righteous', but shrinking support base.
      Jim1961
      • 2 Years Ago
      I'll bet there are a lot of GM employees who want the Volt to succeed and would like Lutz to shut his big mouth.
        Grendal
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Jim1961
        Bob definitely wants the Volt to succeed. He considers it his legacy at GM.
      mylexicon
      • 2 Years Ago
      The hockey stick means nothing for changing human behavior. Utility must be created, in many different forms, and it must appeal to a very of diverse set of global needs. Products must be designed that are inherently superior to what we have now. Resources must be found, and skilled labor developed. Business models must be created so that the industry can support itself with profits. It will take decades to accomplish, and it will be hard as hell. Even more difficult than reaching our current state of economic development. AGW is political brinksmanship. Just another way to divide people and destroy utility. Some of the brightest people, who are without perspective, waste away by arguing about whether or not we can control the weather. Of course, it's never that simple. The hockey stick can't be confirmed until religion is removed from our society. Pedants, like deGrasse Tyson, are not interested in progress. Legislation is not a magic wand to make our hard work disappear. The government has a role to play. If they get it right, we still have to bust ass. If they get it wrong, we will bumble our way into the future. Any legislation that creates disutility to shift people from one activity to another is not worth our time. You kick your kid off of videos games under the pretense he will do his homework. He winds up in the back yard smoking weed. Create effective performance incentives or get out of the way.
        mylexicon
        • 1 Day Ago
        @mylexicon
        Society already understands that pollution is bad. Developed economies already have a penchant for designing and consuming high technology devices. Oil trade imbalance (economics) has already created legal justification for government intervention b/c sustained imbalance by wasteful consumers undermines the integrity of our shared currency. Oil trade causes national security issues as well. A mom will buy a Volt b/c she's worried about the impact of AGW on her family. A businessman will buy a Tesla b/c he wants exclusivity, high technology, and vanity. Yuppies will buy solar b/c their neighbors have it. An accountant will buy a Prius to save money. Investors will buy stocks and bonds in green energy to earn a profit. These decisions are independent of one another, and it is not necessary for each party to acknowledge the merits of each others decisions. People need to grow up and learn about themselves.
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 1 Day Ago
        @mylexicon
        sigh, no AGW is trivially true. there are just some people like you who are spectacularly dense and refuse to accept it. it is not a way to divide people!! it's a fact. only deranged right wingers see the truth as divisive. we have a lot of industry, it produces smoke. it should be within your ability to comprehend.
      marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      No one 'wins' in confrontations like these. The science of climate change is far to complex to explain in a few sound bites. The position of intelligent sceptics and moderates is equally complex and changing. The only entertainment value of this sort of show is gladiatorial, akin to bear baiting ! But it gives the 'true believers' of both sides an opportunity to rant, mostly distorted, information and feel superior. The danger is the rest of the population loses interest, and the environmental message get lost in an unseemly display of ego's.
        skierpage
        • 1 Day Ago
        @marcopolo
        @Marco, You genuinely don't seem to understand the realities of climate science. The observed global warming over the last 150 years or so is real and undeniable. The increase in greenhouse gases due to human activity is real and undeniable. The greenhouse effect is basic physics. The many other factors that drive climate don't match the observed temperature increase. The obvious conclusion is we caused the recent warming, and as GHG concentrations continue to rise it'll continue to warm. The huge fractious scientific debate is how much warming, what other forcings and tipping points there are, where the heat is going, whether the computer models account for everything, etc. There are some climate scientists who think the climate sensitivity is much lower (not so much warming from the CO2 increase) and a handful of climate scientists who think the models are so wrong that much of the observed warming must be from other poorly-understood factors than GHGs; but for every one of them there are outliers who think the warming is going to be much worse much sooner. Then you have members of the public who have ludicrous positions that are wholly at odds with all climate scientists, let alone the consensus. You can see them here, spouting garbage like "What warming?", "We can't change the climate", "Volcanoes emit more CO2", "CO2 is insignificant", "It's all solar variation", etc. People saying such things aren't intelligent skeptics, they're just repeating demonstrably untrue talking points without even engaging with science. Anyone who slaps them down for spouting garbage is not "displaying ego" or ranting!
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 1 Day Ago
        @marcopolo
        that's right wing bs marco. the greenhouse effect is trivial. you disgustingly put forward the vile lie that both truth and lies are equals and should be left to be as is. we produce enormous amounts of CO2, it builds up in the atmosphere and it traps more solar energy. it's that simple. it has complex consequences but that's another matter. and it isn't entertainment either. only wicked people think it is.
          marcopolo
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          @DF, Why do I bother replying to you? The effects of climate change and the science is neither 'simple' nor easily determined. Now for a person who denies evolution, and the age of the planet, you should be careful about who you call names! People who hold contrary views to you, are not 'wicked' , and it's intolerance like yours that creates a dislike of the science of climate change. Your dogmatism alienates the general public and just makes the real debate so much harder! Learn to be more tolerant.
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          what should God do with those who categorically refuse reason? like you there is nothing childish about it. he endures you for so long yet you celebrate your obtuseness. he loves you so yet you are so defiant. so patient yet never will you love reason. when there is no hope, only as a very last resort will you be cast away and incinerated. oceans of mistakes and crimes are forgiven all the time. but those who would sooner die than be reasonable have their request granted. God is wise in the extreme but you would sooner blame the flawless God than consider if you have done anything wrong. hell should gross you out. those few who have visited and come back warn against it. it's not a place you want to be. hell is the fire that removes your withered leaves and if you are all blackened it is all of you. time is just not what you think it is here. we play for keeps
          marcopolo
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          @Ezee, Depressing, but basically correct.
          electronx16
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          @marcopolo "Why do I bother replying to you?" because you can't help yourself. "Learn to be more tolerant." coming from a person who systematically calls dissenting opinions crazy extremist rants. Why don't you call him a hypocrite?
          EZEE
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          Here is a bit of a problem when looking at actually reducing CO2....(I did some looking): About half of China’s coal use is for electricity; and 80% of electricity generation is fueled by coal. China reportedly added over 90 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plant capacity in 2006 alone – the equivalent of almost 2 large coal power plants a week, and more than the entire fleet of generating plants in the United Kingdom. (me again) so with the increases china makes, they are creating entire new Great Britains all the time. This basically says that if AGW is a fact, we are essentially screwed. Britain and other European countries could cease everything, and CO2 levels would still rise, just due to China. This is not to say, 'eff it, full speed ahead,' but china, being a communist (or as Dan says, fascist) country, there is probably not much we can do to change their behavior. So we better darn HOPE Lutz is right, and keep on working for a clean environment, simply because if he is right, we have a clean environment, and, well. That's it.
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          Ezee, it is unusual for a right winger to actually think about the situation with any clarity and you are a somewhat unusual right winger. you actually momentarily understood part of the problem although you did quickly look for a way to close your eyes again but there was a glimmer of decency. much above the usual right wing mindlessness. you're quite right, the problem is large in scale and of course Bob isn't right at all. what you should understand though is that it's easily fixed despite the scale of china and india. if a village of 100 can put up a small windmill, so can we all. the billion+ who cause trouble can also work to fix it. and it is easily fixed. despite pathetic lack of effort, Denmark got over 28% of its electricity from windpower in 2011. you can look at google earth and see if my country is littered with windmills to achieve that. verily I say onto you that there are no technical problems of any significance. there is only a monstrous problem of defeating the satanic mindless right so solutions can be allowed to happen. YOU are the problem. marco is the problem. mylexicon is the problem. bob lutz is. you are all guilty of high treason and you know not what you do. you who support wars based on lies that result in the murder of millions. you who support oil that destroys health, economy and the world and stagnates our civilization and promotes wars. you who lie at every turn to attack the solutions to obvious big problems. you mindless shouters, you zombies of the apocalypse. God will cast you into eternal hellfire for your wickedness. how I long for that day when reason will reign free of the burden of the mindless beasts. for now the dude abides. Vengeance is not mine but His. Eze 25:17
          Grendal
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          "God will cast you into eternal hellfire for your wickedness." Your beliefs are way too black and white, with you (not God) deciding what is black and what is white. Why does your god have all the manners of a spoiled child. For lack of understanding someone is to be tortured for all time? Really? Our lives are a flicker of a moment compared to even the history of the physical universe. I have to say, the petulant god you worship seems to have the personality of some of the worst dictators in history. I apologize for disputing your beliefs but the thought of "Hell" really grosses me out.
        Grendal
        • 1 Day Ago
        @marcopolo
        I totally agree. A few sound bites does not encompass the larger environmental picture. Even focusing on cars and ICE vs. Electric as the way to stop environmental change is shortsighted. The smoky pipe emissions from cars and factories are an easy thing to point at and say "bad". But certainly electric and hybrid cars are a step in the right direction.
      harlanx6
      • 2 Years Ago
      The climate has always changed in a cyclical manner, but for the last 10,000 years the main direction has been warming. No one can deny climate does change. Unfortunately there are those trying to scare the world into giving them political power over the world economies using the threat of global warming as a tool. Business is demonized as a cause of warming, based on inadequate science. We are continually told all scientists agree. That is a lie. Some are even predicting a return of the ice ages. We had better protect our economies, because all prosperity is the result of free commerce. The jury really is still out on climate change. It changes every year. It changes every decade. It changes every century. There evidence the whole solar system is warming. Are we as humans causing it? I doubt it. Can we as humans stop it? It's rediculous to think we can. If the ocean levels are rising, I would suggest our resources would be better spent building sea walls than charging the windmill. All residents of this planet have always had one directive: adapt or die, because environmental equilibrium can never be attained.
        skierpage
        • 1 Day Ago
        @harlanx6
        "We are continually told all scientists agree" Not true, and avoid passive voice. The IPCC is the *consensus* view. For every scientist who thinks it overestimates warming, there are others who think it underestimates. "Are we as humans causing it? I doubt it." Who cares what you think? Faced with 99 climate scientists all agreeing the cause of the current warming is very likely the increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity, you side with the 1 that disagrees. (And if you read their papers instead of their editorials, skeptical climate scientists don't deny the basic greenhouse gases lead to warming argument, they argue details). The "but scientists predicting ice age!" meme is an exaggeration of a minority idea from the 70s that never gained traction. There will be another ice age, but predicting it is hard. It's most likely 10,000 years away, and very unlikely that it's closer than 1,000. Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age . Meanwhile, we have to get through the next century of rapidly increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, which by simple high school physics is going to continue to increase temperatures. Since as a whole we've done virtually f***-all to reduce C02 concentrations and they are actually increasing , I agree we'll have to adapt. But saying it's "ridiculous" to think we can do anything is *EXACTLY* like a fat man saying "The doctor told me I'd get in trouble if my weight went over 200, and now I'm at 280 and I'm still alive. So I'll abandon trying to reduce my calorie intake and my weight, instead I'll just try to adapt as I my weight increases to 350, 450, 550 pounds." That guy is a defeatist moron, and I don't want human society to be the same.
      Dan Frederiksen
      • 2 Years Ago
      interesting but dreadful to see Bob is still super clueless. they actually don't do a great job of educating Bob. talking about changed animal behavior is not going to impress dense Bob. that's more scientific observation. that can't be trusted in Bob's world. incredible he can be so stupid but I see it many times every day so I shouldn't be surprised but it still does surprise. Jack Rickard is also a denier to the point of banning me from his blog for suggesting it is real. and he's big into electric cars. it's a crusade to him. It's odd how so many right wing people get so much wrong. even if you roll a dice you'd get a lot more right. almost as if satan is pulling the strings. and for the record, as understandable as it is that Bill Maher wants his mainstays like global warming is real which it is, it's actually not the case that evolution made us. as obvious as it might seem and how sensible it seems with all the shared DNA, how could it not be true. it just isn't as you can know from the reality of qualia which are qualities of consciousness. like pain and fear, evolutionists would say those are traits to keep us out of danger which makes perfect sense if you don't actually think about it. but a robot analogy can show us that it's flawed logic. a robot can run away from danger without feeling fear and retract its hand without feeling pain. it's just a function, the physical domain has no need for motivation. a robot that screams when you burn its hand felt no pain, didn't need to to do the function nor could it ever experience pain. nothing in the mechanistic domain has the expressive power to manifest any qualia. try as you might, you can never make a robot feel pain. so because we have it it follows simply that we are spiritual beings, as hard as that is to believe, it is nonetheless true. if you don't like the term spiritual you can call it extramechanistic. something outside the mechanistic domain. but it is what it is. nothing in quantum mechanics even considers trying to explain qualia and neither does even string theory. evolution is a purely mechanistic concept so it couldn't have made us, the extramechanistic. it's that simple but hard to accept for most.
        Jon
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Dan Frederiksen
        But there is a problem with your argument Dan. Well for one your argument is just not strong enough to conclude that evolution is false. But even if it could it has a big flaw anyway. Your claim is that emotions felt by a person cannot be explained by mechanistic concepts. Yet this is completely false. You can directly observe how physical properties of the brain affect felt emotions and vice versa. Changes is brain chemistry and measurement of brain activity can be directly related to thoughts and emotions. Mechanistic concepts can explain very much about how emotions work. Of course, consciousness is an extraordinary phenomenon and we definitely do not understand it completely. Regardless, "we dont understand it, so god must have done it" just doesnt cut it.. I know you didnt mention god at all in your post but lets be honest. If you dont believe in evolution you probably believe some guy just made everything. When you can explain where that guy came from perhaps that argument will gain some weight. But if some guy really did create the world as it is today he is awfully devious for designing species and leaving extensive and elaborate clues to look as if evolution of species occurred then punishing you if you reach that conclusion. If you want to know what clues I am talking about do some research and actually try to understand the thing you are saying you dont believe. Its actually quite fascinating. But I am glad we agree on climate change. :)
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Jon
          jon, you confuse your mindless belief system with logic. my argument is flawless, it's just too much for you to accept. you are welcome to make a simple robot feel pain. that should be easy if you are right and I am wrong. any physical device and please don't morbidly disappoint me by invoking the physical body as evidence that that's where it resides. have at least the decency to try and think about something artificial. I know you will fail, this isn't my first rodeo but please don't fail absolutely.
        Grendal
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Dan Frederiksen
        Evolution can be seen clearly in the world around you. It's why there are lots of white tigers around, the man made Liger, and hundreds of breeds of dogs and cats. Breeding is just rapid influenced evolution. The creatures still change which shows that change occurs. Look what humanity has done in a couple thousand years. Given millions of years, you don't think we changed just a bit? Just look at how many people wear glasses. A thousand years ago it was incredibly rare for someone to have bad eyes, because if you did, you'd probably die at an early age. Just look at the world around you - evolution is obvious.
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Grendal
          that things can be killed and paired isn't the same as proof of evolution. the logic I offered you which you were totally unable to appreciate is proof that evolution couldn't have made us. not circumstantial evidence like what you are talking about. this is a heavy topic, try to give it the effort it deserves instead of saddening me by regurgitating mindless belief
        krona2k
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Dan Frederiksen
        What's the difference between a robot sensing danger and planning to act on it and fear? What's the difference between a robot sensing damage and encountering 'pain'. If the robot has a built in sense of self preservation it could experience we what feel as fear or pain. Of course since there's no robotic equivalent of the human brain that's anywhere near as complex the whole argument is pointless.
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 2 Years Ago
      There is actually more intelligent discussion on this board than on the show. Keep in mind folks, Bill Maher is sorta like the progressive / liberal libertarian equivalent of what you see on Fox News. It's not meant to be taken too seriously, and anyone remotely on the right wing side is just basically there to get hammered. I love the heck out of Bill Maher, but you have to know when to take him seriously and when not to. Buying a house in the Florida Keys... there's a joke about an underwater mortgage in there.. somewhere.. ;]
      Nick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Who cares if global warming is real or not? Aren't there other reasons why pollution should be fought hard? 1) Air, Soil and Water pollution. 2) Dependency on foreign energy sources. 3) Dependency on finite energy sources. 4) Huge trade deficit. 5) National Security issues: oil supply needs to be protected by trillion dollar wars; and supply can be sabotaged or cut off by enemy powers. 6) Oil barons, such as the Koch brothers, are buying our elections and undermining our freedom. the list goes on and on...
        marcopolo
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Nick
        @Nick You are quite right, often GW/CC overshadows the more urgent and practical reasons. (Although the Koch brothers seem to be doing a lousy job! Obama will be easily returned for a second term!)
          Grendal
          • 1 Day Ago
          @marcopolo
          Yes, you did. I was quoting (cut and pasting) you, and agreeing with you. Then I put my 2 cents worth in as well.
          Grendal
          • 1 Day Ago
          @marcopolo
          Obama will be easily returned for a second term! @Marco Romney or Santorum is going to be killed by Obama. Romney is pidgeon holed as a rich elitist and Santorum is just too (and soon to be pushed out of the race) extreme. You only have to watch a Saturday Night Live any week to see Romney picked apart and made fun of. Unless he's caught doing something terribly wrong or assassinated by a wack-job, Obama will win.
          marcopolo
          • 1 Day Ago
          @marcopolo
          @Grendal ? Isn't that what I said?
        Ernie Dunbar
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Nick
        That's basically what people like Lutz say. But, well, this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html
      Ford Future
      • 2 Years Ago
      The thing about Lutz is, he isn't even following the "Republican" playbook. They long ago gave up on "global warming isn't real". Now, it's just not "man made" in their minds. But, he can't even remember that. Chilling level of incompetence.
        Grendal
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Ford Future
        It's not the Republican playbook, it's the car maker playbook.
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Ford Future
        the republicans beast mind is not at all that consistent ford. whatever random denial fits the moment is what they do
      Ziv
      • 2 Years Ago
      Lutz is an idiot in some ways, but if I had to put money on any of those three being right, my money would be that Lutz is closer to the truth than the other two. The weather is warmer now than 50 years ago, but trying to lay that at the foot of CO2 levels is hard to do. And Tyson had to try to get Brownie points by dissing the bible and thereby dissing Christians. Lutz is right, temperatures have leveled off and are falling, but Maher is regurgitating the Warmist mantra. My personal bet is that methane, climate cycles and carbon black are more responsible for global warming than CO2. Rising CO2 levels are an issue to be dealt with, but it isn't likely that they will cover the Seychelles in our life time. Or that of your kids, for that matter.
        Matt Fulkerson
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ziv
        Ziv, methane only has a lifetime of around 10 years in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 sticks around for a century. And CO2 only leaves the atmosphere by getting absorbed by the oceans. We are emitting CO2 at something like twice the current capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2, and this capacity will only decline as more CO2 is absorbed. In contrast, due to the short lifetime of methane, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is proportional to the rate at which it is emitted. You have to continually feed methane into the atmosphere just to maintain it's current levels. Total methane in the atmosphere is currently about 1/3 the greenhouse strength of total CO2. But unlike CO2, the potential for growth in methane concentrations is fairly limited (with the possible exception of warming temperatures causing accelerated natural methane emissions). The popular press likes to state that methane is 23 times more potent than CO2, which is only true on an equal concentration basis over an artificially short period of time. CO2 is in fact the real long term danger.
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ziv
        that there is a plateau in temperature of 10 years doesn't disprove the greenhouse effect when that plateau is all the highest temperatures on record. that's as stupid as saying the house isn't on fire because the size of the fire is momentarily unchanging. it is simply clear cut ignorant to deny the man made greenhouse effect. we emit record CO2 amounts, we measure record CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, CO2 is a trivially verified greenhouse gas and we are measuring rising temperatures hand in hand with the 150 years of industrialization. the correlation is as clear as it gets. it is simply spectacularly stupid to deny it. it's very basic science, not even complex theories. and as pointed out in the show 20 years ago the manmade greenhouse effect was universally accepted in the public as well at least here in my country. but when it got too real in terms of impending consequences in 2006 there was seemingly a pushback from evil man and all the idiots were marshalled into thinking it is a legit alternative view and they will defend it to the death. being reasonable and accountable is being vilified. many of the right wing ignorants have been infected with the idea that electric cars are actually bad for the environment and a ford F150 is better for it. I debated a guy who seriously stated that the exhaust from an F150 is cleaner air than the air it took in. please don't be so ignorant and mindless ziv. the fate of the world is on the line.
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          case in point..
          Mallory
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          I debated a guy who seriously stated that the exhaust from an F150 is cleaner air than the air it took in. Check out this link. http://www.insideline.com/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html Scientific proof that in this case at least....he was correct and you were wrong. The F150 with the 6.2L engine cleaned the surrounding air. Of course CO2 output was way up but other pollutants were less. I agree wholeheartedly though....global warming is going to get worse and not better if we all drive Raptors.
      Ernie Dunbar
      • 2 Years Ago
      Bob Lutz is 71. He's not going to see the results of his bet, although there's a decent chance his house in the Keys will be inundated before he dies.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ernie Dunbar
        He's 80, not 71
    • Load More Comments