Business Week: Is Global Warming a "Crock of S*%t?"

[steve2470]

an article for you to critique and debunk...

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jan2010/bw20100128_152091.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

"Global warming is a crock of s*%t!"

When Bob Lutz, vice-chairman of General Motors, said this in February 2008, it immediately became the most widely distributed quote regarding global warming on the Internet. After all, this was one of the major power players in the automobile industry, and he was implying that anyone who believed that global warming was real, man-made, and altering the planet was something akin to a moron. But the problem with that quote is that it's incomplete. I know. I was there.

It was at a small private luncheon at Cacharel in Arlington, Tex., when Lutz uttered those words. But the quote omits what he said next: "Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a climate denier." As he explained to those present, he simply questions the mindset that blames all the climate change of the past few decades on mankind.

Lutz's comments that day were far more balanced and thoughtful than anyone who heard that particular quote might believe. And therein lies the problem with the current discussions on global warming: The media have taken the position that the science is complete and settled. A unanimous agreement that global warming not only exists but is man-made—and we're almost past the point where we can still save the planet from it. Moreover, anyone who questions those absolute statements is quickly labeled a "Climate Change Denier." This label is intended to shame and discredit doubters, much like 500 years ago when church officials prosecuted anyone who preached the earth was not the center of the universe.

However, labeling to discredit someone by calling them a "denier" is a distorted and completely unjust position to take on such an important subject. In fact, virtually no one believes the earth has not gone through a period of unexplained warming. Therefore, the term "denier" is not just inaccurate, it's a complete and intentional mischaracterization of those wanting more open and honest scientific studies on the subject.

As for the position that the science is settled and there is no dissent, as Bob Lutz might say, "that's a crock of s*%t!"

more at link above

[HeresyLives]

1. And that attitude worked out so well for GM too.

[Morning Dew]

2. More like a crock pot - and we're in the s@%t. n/m

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. LOL the author already had to apologize for screwing up.

[ProSense]

4. This is an op-ed by some guy.

Who the hell is Ed Wallace?

[petronius]

5. The denier label is not saying that a person denies there is a warming, it's

aimed at people who deny that there is any human impact. The author of this piece tries to pretend that someone is claiming that "all the climate change" is due to human impacts and deniers are merely questioning that in a reasonable way - that position is the real crock of shit...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. "I'm no climate denier, but..."

"I'm no racist, but..."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. This is every bullshit argument we've heard from climate deniers before.

All wrapped up in one nice post.

[BeFree]

8. atmospheric pollution

who can deny that we are polluting the atmosphere? WHO?

it is a closed system. like in any closed system, such as a room, the
atmosphere when polluted with the right kind and amount of chemicals
will cause the climate in that room to change.

It is called elemental science, of that there can be no honest denial.

[whattheidonot]

10. burn coal

burning coal unchecked for just a few more years will settle this. CO2 does not disappear. Most deniers are in big oil, big coal, cars, Give it 5 years , it will be sorted out. deniers may be out of the market by then.
Clean energy is a no lose deal

[BeFree]

12. CO2

It does get assimilated. But the rate of assimilation and the rate of release into the atmosphere are unbalanced, and that is causing climate change.

One thing the science is telling us is that the oceans - great assimilators of CO2 - are at a saturation point. Or at least the oceans are now being significantly changed due to high carbonate levels due to massive inputs of CO2.

[mn9driver]

9. This is the typical muddled crock 'o' shite opinion from

a writer who doesn't understand the scientific method, doesn't understand the meaning of words like "consensus", and who really can't figure out that NO science is EVER "settled". Just writing those words as if any climate scientist has ever claimed it, is a "crock of s*%t."

Our discourse is ruled by morons.

[NashVegas]

11. I Guess None of These People Saw "The Day After Tomorrow"

Which, as campy as it was, did a pretty good job of laying out the predicted scenario of many climatologists: that global warming would lead, not to a desert, but to a new ice age.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm