LUTZ 'CROCK' RESPONSE

[regfootball]

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/..._a_cr.html#more

Talk About a Crock…

By Bob Lutz

GM Vice Chairman

It amazes me sometimes what kinds of things seem to “catch on” out there.

An offhand comment I made recently about the concept of global warming seems to have a lot of people heated, and it’s spreading through the Internet like ragweed. But I think that the people making big deal out of it are missing the real point. My beliefs are mine and I have a right to them, just as you have a right to yours. But among my strongest beliefs is that my job is to do what makes the most business sense for GM.

Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it. My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors. My opinions on the subject — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really. The point is not why and how did we get where we are, it’s what are we going to do to get where we’re going.

And I think that many of the people who’ve been spewing their virtual vitriol in my direction in the past week are guilty of taking the easy way out.

Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture. What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is — and will continue to be — hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.

General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely. GM is working on just that – and we’re going to keep working on it — via E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile.

The Chevrolet Volt program is occurring under my personal watch, because I believe in it. I fully expect that it will revolutionize the automotive industry, and I’m committed to seeing it successfully developed and in showrooms.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

But Uncle Bob,

This is america... Differing opinions are not tolerated, especially if their different from what's popular. Any high school kid can tell you that.

Get ready folks, it's time for homogeneous society 2.0 to kick in. It's already happening in consumerism, fashion and politics. What's next?

[Windy-57]

And that's the sound of Rick revoking Uncle Bob's media pass.

[hyperv6]

Nothing like getting Corperate Punishment for speaking the truth.

I agree that Rick must have made a call to Bob.

[dwightlooi]

Well... Global Warming IS A CROCK OF SH!T and Hybrids DO NO MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE AT $3~4 a gallon! Cheers Bob!

Before you start accusing me or Bob as a redneck moron, consider the following:-

Global Warming is an alarmist hoax because... back in the Cretaceous when dinosaurs walked the earth, Global temperatures were about 18 degrees (F) warmer than it is today. Many cooling and warming cycles have occurred afterwards, and back when Imhotep built the Step Pyramid (~4700 years ago) global temperatures were about 3 degrees warmer than today. Back when Genghis Khan consolidated out the Mongol Empire and the Norse explored Greenland (~800 years ago; circa 1200 AD) global temperatures were 3~8 degrees warmer than today. The Earth, again, had many warming and cooling cycles in between and thereafter. Late-1800s to ~1940 was a warming period, 1940 to 1977 saw rapid cooling (an the Al Gores of the day were predicting an imminent Ice Age) and finally the 1980s to present had been a MILD warming period (less than during the 1200s and way short of historical peaks). There is no question whatsoever that androgeneous CO2 output consistently increased between 1850 and 2008, there is also no question that Dinosaurs and Genghis Khan didn't drive SUVs. We can therefore say that our current climate is smack right in the middle of historical fluctuations and that it should be seen as perfectly "normal". More importantly, we have ZERO evidence, scientific or statistical, that androgeneous CO2 output due to industrialization has any tangible effect on global climate change. Of course, this won't stop the Nobel Committee from giving Al Gore the Peace Prize, but then again they gave it to a bona fide terrorist, corrupt hate monger and murder Yasir Arafat, so I guess they have very unique "standards"!

Hybrids do not make ECONOMIC sense because... a Corolla averages 32 MPG whereas a Prius costing $6000 more does about 48 MPG in typical mixed driving. Say you drive the average 12000 miles a year. You'll burn 375 gallons in the Corolla and about 250 gallons in the Prius -- a difference of 125 gallons. At $3.50 a gallon you have saved $437.50 a year. It'll take you about 13.7 years to recoup the price difference between the two cars! That is assuming that the maintenance cost is no different between the two and that $2000~3000 battery lasts you that long. Having said that, there may be a decent business case for Hybrids because there are a considerable amount of individuals who want to buy them for "green" pride or out of shear inability to do grammar school math.

Edited February 23, 2008 by dwightlooi

[Blake Noble]

Well... Global Warming IS A CROCK OF SH!T and Hybrids DO NO MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE AT $3~4 a gallon! Cheers Bob!

Before you start accusing me or Bob as a redneck moron, consider the following:-

Global Warming is an alarmist hoax because... back in the Cretaceous when dinosaurs walked the earth, Global temperatures were about 18 degrees (F) warmer than it is today. Many cooling and warming cycles have occurred afterwards, and back when Imhotep built the Step Pyramid (~4700 years ago) global temperatures were about 3 degrees warmer than today. Back when Genghis Khan consolidated out the Mongol Empire and the Norse explored Greenland (~800 years ago; circa 1200 AD) global temperatures were 3~8 degrees warmer than today. The Earth, again, had many warming and cooling cycles in between and thereafter. Late-1800s to ~1940 was a warming period, 1940 to 1977 saw rapid cooling (an the Al Gores of the day were predicting an imminent Ice Age) and finally the 1980s to present had been a MILD warming period (less than during the 1200s and way short of historical peaks). There is no question whatsoever that androgeneous CO2 output consistently increased between 1850 and 2008, there is also no question that Dinosaurs and Genghis Khan didn't drive SUVs. We can therefore say that our current climate is smack right in the middle of historical fluctuations and that it should be seen as perfectly "normal". More importantly, we have ZERO evidence, scientific or statistical, that androgeneous CO2 output due to industrialization has any tangible effect on global climate change. Of course, this won't stop the Nobel Committee from giving Al Gore the Peace Prize, but then again they gave it to a bona fide terrorist, corrupt hate monger and murder Yasir Arafat, so I guess they have very unique "standards"!

Hybrids do not make ECONOMIC sense because... a Corolla averages 32 MPG whereas a Prius costing $6000 more does about 48 MPG in typical mixed driving. Say you drive the average 12000 miles a year. You'll burn 375 gallons in the Corolla and about 250 gallons in the Prius -- a difference of 125 gallons. At $3.50 a gallon you have saved $437.50 a year. It'll take you about 13.7 years to recoup the price difference between the two cars! That is assuming that the maintenance cost is no different between the two and that $2000~3000 battery lasts you that long. Having said that, there may be a decent business case for Hybrids because there are a considerable amount of individuals who want to buy them for "green" pride or out of shear inability to do grammar school math.

Edited February 24, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[pow]

Well... Global Warming IS A CROCK OF SH!T and Hybrids DO NO MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE AT $3~4 a gallon! Cheers Bob!

Before you start accusing me or Bob as a redneck moron, consider the following:-

Global Warming is an alarmist hoax because... back in the Cretaceous when dinosaurs walked the earth, Global temperatures were about 18 degrees (F) warmer than it is today. Many cooling and warming cycles have occurred afterwards, and back when Imhotep built the Step Pyramid (~4700 years ago) global temperatures were about 3 degrees warmer than today. Back when Genghis Khan consolidated out the Mongol Empire and the Norse explored Greenland (~800 years ago; circa 1200 AD) global temperatures were 3~8 degrees warmer than today. The Earth, again, had many warming and cooling cycles in between and thereafter. Late-1800s to ~1940 was a warming period, 1940 to 1977 saw rapid cooling (an the Al Gores of the day were predicting an imminent Ice Age) and finally the 1980s to present had been a MILD warming period (less than during the 1200s and way short of historical peaks). There is no question whatsoever that androgeneous CO2 output consistently increased between 1850 and 2008, there is also no question that Dinosaurs and Genghis Khan didn't drive SUVs. We can therefore say that our current climate is smack right in the middle of historical fluctuations and that it should be seen as perfectly "normal". More importantly, we have ZERO evidence, scientific or statistical, that androgeneous CO2 output due to industrialization has any tangible effect on global climate change. Of course, this won't stop the Nobel Committee from giving Al Gore the Peace Prize, but then again they gave it to a bona fide terrorist, corrupt hate monger and murder Yasir Arafat, so I guess they have very unique "standards"!

Hybrids do not make ECONOMIC sense because... a Corolla averages 32 MPG whereas a Prius costing $6000 more does about 48 MPG in typical mixed driving. Say you drive the average 12000 miles a year. You'll burn 375 gallons in the Corolla and about 250 gallons in the Prius -- a difference of 125 gallons. At $3.50 a gallon you have saved $437.50 a year. It'll take you about 13.7 years to recoup the price difference between the two cars! That is assuming that the maintenance cost is no different between the two and that $2000~3000 battery lasts you that long. Having said that, there may be a decent business case for Hybrids because there are a considerable amount of individuals who want to buy them for "green" pride or out of shear inability to do grammar school math.

:rotflmao: You're right... I always thought CO2 was genderless.

[sciguy_0504]

Meanwhile, we have people climbing on the tops of commercial jets and chaining themselves to the roof of the British Parliament over this BS called global warming.

It's communism for the 21st century...just another way to control people.

[Cremazie]

Either way, we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

[GXT]

Hybrids do not make ECONOMIC sense because... a Corolla averages 32 MPG whereas a Prius costing $6000 more does about 48 MPG in typical mixed driving. Say you drive the average 12000 miles a year. You'll burn 375 gallons in the Corolla and about 250 gallons in the Prius -- a difference of 125 gallons. At $3.50 a gallon you have saved $437.50 a year. It'll take you about 13.7 years to recoup the price difference between the two cars! That is assuming that the maintenance cost is no different between the two and that $2000~3000 battery lasts you that long. Having said that, there may be a decent business case for Hybrids because there are a considerable amount of individuals who want to buy them for "green" pride or out of shear inability to do grammar school math.

Hybrids are about city driving, not highway driving. That would change your payoff date by a few years in favour of the hybrids. However Hybrids are not yet been about economic payoff (except for cabs). And although hybrids haven't been about economic payoff, at least they are getting close.

The Volt, on the other hand, isn't. Take the Volt and compare it to the Corolla. GM has indicated that pricing will be above $30K. Let's say $33,000. That is 18K more than the Corolla. Corolla apparently gets 32 MPG. Let's say that you manage to drive the Volt ONLY on electricity. That will cost you just under a $1.00/day for electricity, or $365/year. At $3.50/gallon and 375 gallons/year for the Corolla, that is $1,312.50/year, or $947.50 more per year than the Volt. That is a 19 year recoup on car with a $10,000 battery that is spec'd to last only 10 years.

So the Volt makes a Hybrid look like a good investment. That would be no problem if the Volt were, like a Toyota or Honda hybrid, sold as being about all the benefits of using less fuel. Except that Lutz has spent so many years building cars like the Viper. And GM has spent the past years maligning hybrids. Now they are pretending to have a magical about-face on the issue, and I think they were even having some success with this Volt PR-stunt. That was when Bob was shooting off his big mouth with Volt lies such as 100,000 Volts in the first year, sub $25K price, etc. He should have stuck to those as GM could continue to quietly follow behind him and backtrack. But these comments, correct or incorrect, bring Viper-Lutz and Hybrids-Are-Stupid-GM back to the forefront. They are a smear on GM's attempts to play pretend-Toyota.

I, for one, think this is a refreshing change to the misinformation that he has been spewing for months now.

[dwightlooi]

Either way, we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

OK... this begs the age old question... WHY?

Fossil Fuel is still the most abundant and cheapest energy source bar none. It is cheaper than any of its alternatives by a margin of several to ten of times even at $100/barrel and $3.50 a gallon of gasoline. There is no question that at some point in the future it will become expensive enough that alternatives will start to make sense. But why shouldn't we allow the market to decide that instead of putting that decision in the hands of a class of bungling and often highly misinformed politicians?

In the meanwhile, why shouldn't we be talking instead about increasing domestic oil exploration and extraction? How about drilling in Alaska, off the coast of California and elsewhere which we know has the geographic features that tends to yield oil reserves? Also, in large part the gasoline prices of today are the result of refining capacity shortfalls rather than crude prices. At $1.40 a gallon in the mid 90s, crude was at $40 a barrel. In otherwords, about $0.95 of that $1.40 was the cost of crude. It cost us a little under 50 cents to turn crude into gasoline served up at your neighborhood pump. Today, the crude costs $2.38. Now, why does it cost $1.12 to turn that into gasoline? In part it is due to refinery shortages. We haven't built a new refinery since the 70s thanks to radical environmental lobbying and feel good politicians! Why shouldn't we revisit this issue?

At some point, when oil becomes hard enough to get to because the easily accessible reserves have all been tapped and exhausted, oil will become more and more a fuel of choice for applications which absolutely have no practical alternatives -- such as commercial and military aviation. At some point we will have to find some way to get our energy and to transport it. And we already know what the answer to that is because there is only ONE answer -- thermonuclear power production and battery storage. Yes, you can forget hydrogen or ethanol or wind or solar or tidal or geothermal.

The reason is that Hydrogen is NOT an energy source, hydrogen has to be produced for more energy input than you will ever get out of it which means that it is at best an energy storage medium -- and a real crappy one at that. Most of the hydrogen produced today is produced by cracking hydrocarbon fuel(s). The other way to get it is by applying corpus amounts of electric power to electrolyze it out of water -- electric power which needs to come from somewhere. At -423 deg F it is ridiculous to store or transport as a liquid. Carrying hydogen at 5000 psi as a gas, using all your trunk space for explosive tanks still carrying less energy than a 1/4 tank of gasoline.

Ethanol is struggling to get to 1:1 in terms of energy input into its production and it's energy yield. In other words, it is also not a practical energy source although it is a more practical energy transport medium than hydrogen. In addition, we don't really have enough farm land to grow enough sugar & starch crops to produce enough ethanol to replace oil! That is not counting the fact that we'll need to account for the energy that needs to go into ethanol production which -- right now -- is roughly the energy you get out of the process. The argument around ethanol really should be whether we should convert energy to ethanol for carriage purposes rather than whether we can get energy out of ethanol production.

Solar, Tidal, Wind, hydro-electric, geothermal and all of the other "free" energy production schemes combined cannot produce enough energy to cover 10~20% of our current energy needs even if we we discount their unreliable nature and the impossibility of populating every practical inch of or our country with devices that produce power sometimes when the weather and season permits. Again, these are feel good technology with no shot at all in addressing mankind's energy needs at present levels much less future demands.

So the only answer isNuclear. Add about 500 to 5000 reactors to the map (depending on the type and size of the plants) and we'll take care of our energy production problem. You get electricity out of it which you can then distribute with an evolved and beefed up version of the current electrical grid. The "new" middle-east in a Uranium economy will be in Australia -- not exactly an explosive land packed full of Islamo fascists and tinpot despots. For storage in vehicles, you utilize batteries. Combustible fuels like ethanol and crude distillates will provide high energy fraction fuels for aviation and space applications. That is the ONLY plausible future given what we know today. The question is when do we make that transition? If you ask me, I'll say that the market will tell us when, and it'll do so in an unbiased and perfectly informed manner which we can only dream of when it comes from career legislatives.

[Blake Noble]

Hybrids are about city driving, not highway driving.

Yes, well, I guarantee that any hybrid car is going to be driven on an Interstate with a 65 miles per hour minimum speed limit weekly, if not almost daily, if it is owned by someone who works a job with a good salary, is under the retirement age, commutes, and lives in a major suburb of a major city, if they aren't living in the city itself, at some point in the time of ownership and any future ownership if it is traded.

Hybrid cars are supposed to be about efficiency. Well, in that case, they should be about city and highway driving, just not one or the other, since they will most likely be driven in both conditions.

Edited March 2, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[CaddyXLR-V]

There's also a ton of oil in the shale around CO, UT, and WY in the mountains (reported to be higher than the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has). So if your concern is about buying our from foreign counties, then that would actually be a good thing. Once they run out of oil, the US will have the largest known deposits of oil, though it is more expensive and more difficult to extract. They are testing super heaters which cause the oil to come out of the shale.

[The O.C.]

Hybrids do not make ECONOMIC sense because... a Corolla averages 32 MPG whereas a Prius costing $6000 more does about 48 MPG in typical mixed driving. Say you drive the average 12000 miles a year. You'll burn 375 gallons in the Corolla and about 250 gallons in the Prius -- a difference of 125 gallons. At $3.50 a gallon you have saved $437.50 a year. It'll take you about 13.7 years to recoup the price difference between the two cars! That is assuming that the maintenance cost is no different between the two and that $2000~3000 battery lasts you that long. Having said that, there may be a decent business case for Hybrids because there are a considerable amount of individuals who want to buy them for "green" pride or out of shear inability to do grammar school math.

The Prius I had as a rental one time only averaged 37mpg in mixed L.A. driving.

Plus, you could even argue that you could get into a bigger, nicer Camry L4 and probably still have to keep the Prius 5-6 years to make up the difference.....

[Windy-57]

Well... Global Warming IS A CROCK OF SH!T and Hybrids DO NO MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE AT $3~4 a gallon! Cheers Bob!

Before you start accusing me or Bob as a redneck moron, consider the following:-

Global Warming is an alarmist hoax because...

Hybrids do not make ECONOMIC sense because

1. I'm not about to start arguing whether or not global warming is actually happening, but I just don't think that it's a prudent move to make such a bold statement if you're a leader in an industry taking it on the chin as responsible for global warming (and I know that autos are only a portion of the problem, so no need to point that out). Further, GM's been getting it worse than anyone, so it really throws a gauntlet where you don't want one thrown.

2. True, hybrids don't currently make economic sense. At best, they have value as a marketing tool. And fact does remain that until they are economically viable, large groups of people aren't going to buy them. But I think people really like the idea of hybrids and want a company to step up and find a way to make them economically viable. It's in this area that I think GM deserves a lot of credit for the 2-mode and Volt because both of those systems are built around deliveing fuel saving returns under more typical driving conditions. So to the point here, I think it's damaging to GM for Bob to say stuff like this because it fights the flow of public opinion, whereas he could say things like, "It's $h!ty that some automotive companies have you believing that you need to take money out of your pocket and take food off your table in order to save the environment. At GM, we believe the higher good is to develop cars that will save the environment AND put money back into your pocket. That's why we're develeping vehicles like the Volt...."

[Northstar]

Plus, you could even argue that you could get into a bigger, nicer Camry L4 and probably still have to keep the Prius 5-6 years to make up the difference.....

Or a Malibu, Accord, Altima, etc. Prius only makes sense if you have money to burn, really and want to be a greenie.

[pow]

Or a Malibu, Accord, Altima, etc. Prius only makes sense if you have money to burn, really and want to be a greenie.

Or if you need a car and simply want the most fuel efficient and lowest polluting one that also happens to be well-rounded and practical, unlike the Insight.

At $21K, the Prius costs the same as a comparable Camry, and you get greater fuel economy, greater resale value, less pollution, lower running costs, originality, and hatchback versatility in exchange for less power and passenger volume. For $23K, you get a backup camera, stability control, keyless go, Xenons, alloys, and iPod compatibility.

[turbo200]

The Prius I had as a rental one time only averaged 37mpg in mixed L.A. driving.

Plus, you could even argue that you could get into a bigger, nicer Camry L4 and probably still have to keep the Prius 5-6 years to make up the difference.....

it was probably your driving. hybrids are not all the same nature obviously, but I have friends who own a Prius here, face the worst traffic and also do plenty of general driving, and thier average is more like 42 mpg. in better commutes thier averages have gone above 50 mpg. My average highest has been 45, but it can dip as low as 39, however that is mostly because I usually drive like I really want to get somewhere, unless there are those days where I like to just take it easy [once a month], and I am everyday in the worst kinds of traffic, but not for extended periods of time, more than 1 hour.

[stillen]

Corn allocations to ethanol is going to make the cost beef go up because cattleman cannot afford corn because its too expensive and are killing of stock right now this will show up this fall in BEEF prices.

Also the price of cotton and other goods are on the rise as well because of that.

Edited March 14, 2008 by stillen

[PurdueGuy]

Corn allocations to ethanol is going to make the cost beef go up because cattleman cannpot afford corn because its too expensive and are killing of stock right now this will show up this fall in BEEF prices.

Also the price of cotton and other goods are riseing as well because of that.

yeah, the increased cost of corn spreads to other products... and people with whine & complain about it... and still pay it. It's called change, and it's gonna happen. Besides, it's not like corn is the only ethanol source. It may even get phased right back out as other more efficient ethanol production methods take over.

[stillen]

OH so we are supposed to get used to it and bend over for it again.

Not gonna happpen corn ethanol is plain stupid now some of the bio fuels coming out make sense in alot of ways.

We get screwed form either side but more from the left the Eternal politician needs to go fast

Edited March 17, 2008 by stillen

[siegen]

Hybrids do not make ECONOMIC sense because... a Corolla averages 32 MPG whereas a Prius costing $6000 more does about 48 MPG in typical mixed driving.

The Corolla and Prius do not make the best comparison, since they are different vehicles and different sizes. The Civic and Civic hybrid would be a better comparison, since you can compare a gasoline to a hybrid with all other factors remaining constant (you could also do a Camry to Camry hybrid comparison, but I think Toyota's hybrid system is uselessly complex anyhow).

In this case, based on well over 100 results each at www.fueleconomy.gov for combined driving, the Civic achieves 30.8mpg and the HCH achieves 44.1mpg. The HCH is $3,090 more than the automatic equipped EX. For the most part they are comparable in features although there are a few discrepancies. For example the HCH has automatic climate control while the EX has a moonroof.

The HCH makes sense depending on driving habits and your local cost of gas. The extra maintenance costs of the HCH need to be taken into account as well, although they won't be excessive, nor will they be as much as a more complex Toyota hybrid (a bit of speculation there).

EX: 389.6 gallons to travel 12k. $1,363.60 at $3.50/gallon

HCH: 272 gallons to travel 12k. $950.00 at $3.50/gallon

$413.60 saved per year. 7.5 years to recoup costs, or 90,000 miles. If gas is $4.00 where you live it changes the result, and if gas continues to rise further the hybrid makes more sense yet. However, there is the possibility that gas will not go up a lot more, and might even come back down. It's a gamble, but either way you are still using less oil by driving the hybrid version, and at least the extra money is going to an automotive company instead of an oil company.

Honda has always been of the stance that hybrids only make sense on small cars, hence they dropped the Accord hybrid (which was a performance hybrid anyway) and are releasing a new smaller hybrid vehicle similar to the Fit and a new hybrid small sports car similar to the old CRX. They believe that clean diesels are the right choice for medium sized cars like the TSX, Accord, CR-V, etc, and the V-6 diesels will go to the Odyssey, Pilot, and larger vehicles. A diesel hybrid has not been confirmed nor denied, however it would likely be very expensive.

Edited March 14, 2008 by siegen

[siegen]

Global Warming is an alarmist hoax because... back in the Cretaceous when dinosaurs walked the earth, Global temperatures were about 18 degrees (F) warmer than it is today. Many cooling and warming cycles have occurred afterwards, and back when Imhotep built the Step Pyramid (~4700 years ago) global temperatures were about 3 degrees warmer than today. Back when Genghis Khan consolidated out the Mongol Empire and the Norse explored Greenland (~800 years ago; circa 1200 AD) global temperatures were 3~8 degrees warmer than today. The Earth, again, had many warming and cooling cycles in between and thereafter. Late-1800s to ~1940 was a warming period, 1940 to 1977 saw rapid cooling (an the Al Gores of the day were predicting an imminent Ice Age) and finally the 1980s to present had been a MILD warming period (less than during the 1200s and way short of historical peaks). There is no question whatsoever that androgeneous CO2 output consistently increased between 1850 and 2008, there is also no question that Dinosaurs and Genghis Khan didn't drive SUVs. We can therefore say that our current climate is smack right in the middle of historical fluctuations and that it should be seen as perfectly "normal". More importantly, we have ZERO evidence, scientific or statistical, that androgeneous CO2 output due to industrialization has any tangible effect on global climate change. Of course, this won't stop the Nobel Committee from giving Al Gore the Peace Prize, but then again they gave it to a bona fide terrorist, corrupt hate monger and murder Yasir Arafat, so I guess they have very unique "standards"!

I agree completely with you on the global warming issue.

We are in a warming trend right now, which is absolutely nothing new. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has spiked enormously since the industrial revolution, which I do feel we need to get under control, but there is no real evidence which attributes that spike to causing an increase in average temperatures.

Most global warming advocates immediately turn to a graph showing the average surface temperature of the planet for the last half million years, and a graph overlaid showing CO2 composition of the atmosphere for the same time period (in fact, here it is). From looking at it, it is immediately apparent that the two figures correlate closely on the graph, and for most people this is all the proof they need that CO2 causes global warming trends. There are two problems with this assumption however. First, it is only showing two statistics. To properly determine that CO2 is the cause, using the scientific method, it would require that all other possible factors be taken into account, and a controlled experiment done where all other factors except for CO2 are held constant.

The second problem is that people automatically come to the conclusion that CO2 is a necessary cause of global warming. If let's say CO2 does indeed cause global warming, it is still possible that it is merely a sufficient cause. That is, while CO2 may cause global warming, there may also be other factors which cause it as well.

Edited March 14, 2008 by siegen

[dwightlooi]

I agree completely with you on the global warming issue.

We are in a warming trend right now, which is absolutely nothing new. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has spiked enormously since the industrial revolution, which I do feel we need to get under control, but there is no real evidence which attributes that spike to causing an increase in average temperatures.

Most global warming advocates immediately turn to a graph showing the average surface temperature of the planet for the last half million years, and a graph overlaid showing CO2 composition of the atmosphere for the same time period (in fact, here it is). From looking at it, it is immediately apparent that the two figures correlate closely on the graph, and for most people this is all the proof they need that CO2 causes global warming trends. There are two problems with this assumption however. First, it is only showing two statistics. To properly determine that CO2 is the cause, using the scientific method, it would require that all other possible factors be taken into account, and a controlled experiment done where all other factors except for CO2 are held constant.

The second problem is that people automatically come to the conclusion that CO2 is a necessary cause of global warming. If let's say CO2 does indeed cause global warming, it is still possible that it is merely a sufficient cause. That is, while CO2 may cause global warming, there may also be other factors which cause it as well.

BTW, over the past 12 months or so, we have seen a sharp DROP in global temperatures based on the most accurate method of measurement we have -- satellite IR thermographs. In fact, we have cooled so much in the past 1 year that it effectively erased ALL of the warming we saw in the past 12 years (1996 thru 2007)! Androgeneous CO2 output has unquestionably increased in the past 12 months, so any scientifically minded individual has to ask -- just how much of a role does it have to play in global temperatures. Also, unquestionable is a sharp fall off in solar flare activity of our Sun, again we have to ask how much the rather abnormally higher level of solar flare activity in the past couple of decades has to do with our recent warming trend.

Now, I am not saying that the warming trend has ended and will not resume. But it is true that all of the warming since 1996 has been wiped out. Not by some Kyoto Accord, not by carbon credits, but rather it just happened due to non-androgeneous reasons we have yet to fully comprehend. Based on the same kind of argumentative basis used by Global Warming yanters to support their theory, I should be forecasting the re-emergence of woolly mammoths by the time our kids grow up! Jeez!

[regfootball]

Corn allocations to ethanol is going to make the cost beef go up because cattleman cannot afford corn because its too expensive and are killing of stock right now this will show up this fall in BEEF prices.

Also the price of cotton and other goods are on the rise as well because of that.

go to GMI and read hoosier ron's thread on how actually more net land and yield ws generated for corn in 2007 compared to 06 and 05, after even increased ethanol production is figured in.

the amount of food and feed corn is increasing, even after the corn used for ethanol is accounted for.

cows should be grass fed instead of corn fed anyways.

Edited March 16, 2008 by regfootball

[regfootball]

The Corolla and Prius do not make the best comparison, since they are different vehicles and different sizes. The Civic and Civic hybrid would be a better comparison, since you can compare a gasoline to a hybrid with all other factors remaining constant (you could also do a Camry to Camry hybrid comparison, but I think Toyota's hybrid system is uselessly complex anyhow).

In this case, based on well over 100 results each at www.fueleconomy.gov for combined driving, the Civic achieves 30.8mpg and the HCH achieves 44.1mpg. The HCH is $3,090 more than the automatic equipped EX. For the most part they are comparable in features although there are a few discrepancies. For example the HCH has automatic climate control while the EX has a moonroof.

The HCH makes sense depending on driving habits and your local cost of gas. The extra maintenance costs of the HCH need to be taken into account as well, although they won't be excessive, nor will they be as much as a more complex Toyota hybrid (a bit of speculation there).

EX: 389.6 gallons to travel 12k. $1,363.60 at $3.50/gallon

HCH: 272 gallons to travel 12k. $950.00 at $3.50/gallon

$413.60 saved per year. 7.5 years to recoup costs, or 90,000 miles. If gas is $4.00 where you live it changes the result, and if gas continues to rise further the hybrid makes more sense yet. However, there is the possibility that gas will not go up a lot more, and might even come back down. It's a gamble, but either way you are still using less oil by driving the hybrid version, and at least the extra money is going to an automotive company instead of an oil company.

Honda has always been of the stance that hybrids only make sense on small cars, hence they dropped the Accord hybrid (which was a performance hybrid anyway) and are releasing a new smaller hybrid vehicle similar to the Fit and a new hybrid small sports car similar to the old CRX. They believe that clean diesels are the right choice for medium sized cars like the TSX, Accord, CR-V, etc, and the V-6 diesels will go to the Odyssey, Pilot, and larger vehicles. A diesel hybrid has not been confirmed nor denied, however it would likely be very expensive.

when my buddy bought his civic 6 months ago, the spread was 7k. 24k for the hybrid vs. 17k for the civic he got.

diesel in these parts now is nearly a dollar more per gallon. its a shame, but that alone will stymie diesel i fear.

Edited March 16, 2008 by regfootball

[regfootball]

I agree completely with you on the global warming issue.

We are in a warming trend right now, which is absolutely nothing new. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has spiked enormously since the industrial revolution, which I do feel we need to get under control, but there is no real evidence which attributes that spike to causing an increase in average temperatures.

Most global warming advocates immediately turn to a graph showing the average surface temperature of the planet for the last half million years, and a graph overlaid showing CO2 composition of the atmosphere for the same time period (in fact, here it is). From looking at it, it is immediately apparent that the two figures correlate closely on the graph, and for most people this is all the proof they need that CO2 causes global warming trends. There are two problems with this assumption however. First, it is only showing two statistics. To properly determine that CO2 is the cause, using the scientific method, it would require that all other possible factors be taken into account, and a controlled experiment done where all other factors except for CO2 are held constant.

The second problem is that people automatically come to the conclusion that CO2 is a necessary cause of global warming. If let's say CO2 does indeed cause global warming, it is still possible that it is merely a sufficient cause. That is, while CO2 may cause global warming, there may also be other factors which cause it as well.

see, why doesn't everyone at least think about it themselves like you have?

the thing that always kills me, like we have temperature data from a million years ago. they didn't even have thermometers or weathermen with bad hair back then, much less tv to broadcast it on.

scientists can spew any 'data' they want, and think people should believe it. there is no way to know exactly the temp was on march 15, 1435 in rome. that's why any attempt to use temps past beyond 100 years or so is pure unadulterated bull$h!.

Edited March 16, 2008 by regfootball

[hyperv6]

It is all about money not Global Warming.

There are many people who have or stand to make a lot of money with the new eviro laws.

They have found groups that are anti Govermnet or Corperate that are willing to fight this with their reprogamed minions. They use these evireo groups just like lobbiest are used by corperations to make money though influence on the goverment.

No matter if Global Warming is true or false or proven or not is another argument. But look at the people who are beind it and what they have to gain. The profits in the Gloobal warming can be great.

Just in Ohio the E Check for car was passed by many of the same people who invested in the company. Now to keep everyone happy after the law was thrown out it is free as the state is getting funding form other things like the Tobaco law suit money they recieved. The company that is perfromning the service has had the contract renewed and the investors are still making a buck.

The key problem is most of the car pass the test even with things wrong. I have seen cars with converters missing one on a Viper by buddy has and pass. They had no idea where to look or even perfrom the test correctly. They even tried to test another friends Fiero on the Dyno they no longer use on the front wheel. This is what was advertised as a highly trained staff.

Note also that any corperation that tries to provide data or testing info is bashed and discreditied before their info is even read.

It is a power struggle over money and the public is caught in the middle.

The truth is there are lies on both sides and Al Gore is nothing but a Lobbyist in the public domain.

By the way the air in NE Ohio they calim is Horrible but the truth is it's cleaner than in the last 100 years. We no longer have any industry or labor jobs but we have very little soot or any work for many unskilled labor.

[dwightlooi]

see, why doesn't everyone at least think about it themselves like you have?

the thing that always kills me, like we have temperature data from a million years ago. they didn't even have thermometers or weathermen with bad hair back then, much less tv to broadcast it on.

scientists can spew any 'data' they want, and think people should believe it. there is no way to know exactly the temp was on march 15, 1435 in rome. that's why any attempt to use temps past beyond 100 years or so is pure unadulterated bull$h!.

Actually, we do have means of determining approximate temperatures and ice cap extents eons before the advent of modern meteology. Ice core samples, extent of temperate and non-deciduous vegetation through fossil excavation or in more recent times -- like Roman or crusader eras -- historical records of climatic conditions. We know for instance that a not insignificant part of the reasons the crusades happened was not religious in nature. Rather, Europe was shrouded in some of the worst and longest winters known an the resultant crappy harvests and near famine conditions drove lords and monarchs to seek their wealth through plunder and occupation of the "holy land".

[hyperv6]

Core samples, Ships records and recorded observations do give us a glimps of what world temps were in some regions. They give a good approximation.

Most of them show that the world temps do swing up and down over the years but because theses are approximations many can still debate the final meaning.

The funny thing is so much of what the scientific community has said has also been proven wrong over the years.

When MT ST Helens exploded they said that area would be lost for years. Now the Wild life and plant growth is better than ever due to the better soil today. As time goes on that area is better than even before the blast in many ways.

Where the Nuke plant went off in the USSR they said it was a lost area for 10's of thousands of years. Well today you can go in and radiation levels are low enough you could live there if you like. The animal population is thriving and plants and trees are showing no ill effects.

The eath is regeneration and in many ways no matter what man does the earth will reclaim it more quickly than may so call experts think.

There recently have been two shows on TV out lining what would happen if many vanished. Most traces of many would be gone in only a few hundred years. This is something I have know for a long time as one only has to abserve abandoned human sites and see how they decay to nealy nothing in some cases only 50 years.

I have seen homes, cars and machinery rust and decay to nearly nothing in the Smoky Mountains. In not too many more years all traces will be gone unless you do a major dig to liik for rusted nails or a foundation.

I have heard from both sides and can say that the people who are behind Global warming have proven their case beyond all doubt.

Just seeing the Law suit by the present group of meterologist should send a message more still needs to be learned before you sell the farm. Untill then I would refrain from siging any deals named Kyoto as you had better know or have indisputable proof before putting the USA at a disadvantage in the world economy.

[Camino LS6]

OK... this begs the age old question... WHY?

Fossil Fuel is still the most abundant and cheapest energy source bar none. It is cheaper than any of its alternatives by a margin of several to ten of times even at $100/barrel and $3.50 a gallon of gasoline. There is no question that at some point in the future it will become expensive enough that alternatives will start to make sense. But why shouldn't we allow the market to decide that instead of putting that decision in the hands of a class of bungling and often highly misinformed politicians?

In the meanwhile, why shouldn't we be talking instead about increasing domestic oil exploration and extraction? How about drilling in Alaska, off the coast of California and elsewhere which we know has the geographic features that tends to yield oil reserves? Also, in large part the gasoline prices of today are the result of refining capacity shortfalls rather than crude prices. At $1.40 a gallon in the mid 90s, crude was at $40 a barrel. In otherwords, about $0.95 of that $1.40 was the cost of crude. It cost us a little under 50 cents to turn crude into gasoline served up at your neighborhood pump. Today, the crude costs $2.38. Now, why does it cost $1.12 to turn that into gasoline? In part it is due to refinery shortages. We haven't built a new refinery since the 70s thanks to radical environmental lobbying and feel good politicians! Why shouldn't we revisit this issue?

At some point, when oil becomes hard enough to get to because the easily accessible reserves have all been tapped and exhausted, oil will become more and more a fuel of choice for applications which absolutely have no practical alternatives -- such as commercial and military aviation. At some point we will have to find some way to get our energy and to transport it. And we already know what the answer to that is because there is only ONE answer -- thermonuclear power production and battery storage. Yes, you can forget hydrogen or ethanol or wind or solar or tidal or geothermal.

The reason is that Hydrogen is NOT an energy source, hydrogen has to be produced for more energy input than you will ever get out of it which means that it is at best an energy storage medium -- and a real crappy one at that. Most of the hydrogen produced today is produced by cracking hydrocarbon fuel(s). The other way to get it is by applying corpus amounts of electric power to electrolyze it out of water -- electric power which needs to come from somewhere. At -423 deg F it is ridiculous to store or transport as a liquid. Carrying hydogen at 5000 psi as a gas, using all your trunk space for explosive tanks still carrying less energy than a 1/4 tank of gasoline.

Ethanol is struggling to get to 1:1 in terms of energy input into its production and it's energy yield. In other words, it is also not a practical energy source although it is a more practical energy transport medium than hydrogen. In addition, we don't really have enough farm land to grow enough sugar & starch crops to produce enough ethanol to replace oil! That is not counting the fact that we'll need to account for the energy that needs to go into ethanol production which -- right now -- is roughly the energy you get out of the process. The argument around ethanol really should be whether we should convert energy to ethanol for carriage purposes rather than whether we can get energy out of ethanol production.

Solar, Tidal, Wind, hydro-electric, geothermal and all of the other "free" energy production schemes combined cannot produce enough energy to cover 10~20% of our current energy needs even if we we discount their unreliable nature and the impossibility of populating every practical inch of or our country with devices that produce power sometimes when the weather and season permits. Again, these are feel good technology with no shot at all in addressing mankind's energy needs at present levels much less future demands.

So the only answer isNuclear. Add about 500 to 5000 reactors to the map (depending on the type and size of the plants) and we'll take care of our energy production problem. You get electricity out of it which you can then distribute with an evolved and beefed up version of the current electrical grid. The "new" middle-east in a Uranium economy will be in Australia -- not exactly an explosive land packed full of Islamo fascists and tinpot despots. For storage in vehicles, you utilize batteries. Combustible fuels like ethanol and crude distillates will provide high energy fraction fuels for aviation and space applications. That is the ONLY plausible future given what we know today. The question is when do we make that transition? If you ask me, I'll say that the market will tell us when, and it'll do so in an unbiased and perfectly informed manner which we can only dream of when it comes from career legislatives.

You are one sharp cookie, my friend.

However, your assertions on both Hydrogen and Ethanol are out of date. Read up on the newer processes in our alternative fuels forum.

[regfootball]

Actually, we do have means of determining approximate temperatures and ice cap extents eons before the advent of modern meteology. Ice core samples, extent of temperate and non-deciduous vegetation through fossil excavation or in more recent times -- like Roman or crusader eras -- historical records of climatic conditions. We know for instance that a not insignificant part of the reasons the crusades happened was not religious in nature. Rather, Europe was shrouded in some of the worst and longest winters known an the resultant crappy harvests and near famine conditions drove lords and monarchs to seek their wealth through plunder and occupation of the "holy land".

still, its not like you uncovered precise temperature data taken hour by hour each day of the year, verified and documented AT THE TIME at hundreds of thousands of places on the globe. any sort of reverse calculation to attempt to create accurate weather records to compare on an equal sample basis with the way we document weather today doesn't exist. therefore, there is no method of verifying and hence making a wholly accurate comparo to today. So basis anything off the past which you cannot prove to today's level of accuracy and completeness is flawed.

Edited March 17, 2008 by regfootball