Comments on: Looking for the New Lutz

By: tapra1

tapra1 — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:46:46 +0000

"doesn't really play to my greatest skills, which were perhaps more in the intuitive, emotional area with sort of a sense for what the market would want."Tech Updates

By: car dvd

car dvd — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:38:33 +0000

Wow,Fantastic article,it's so helpful to me,and your blog is very good,I've learned a lot from your blog here,Keep on going,my friend,I will keep an eye on it,One more thing,thanks for your post!welcome to car dvd.

By: Henry164

Henry164 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:35:20 +0000

if you interested in dealing bathroom products, we can help you to supply all what you need from china,we do this for more than 10 years, for more information please visit bathroom products.

By: SacEkimi

SacEkimi — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:40:41 +0000

Lutz is a poser. Unfortunately, GM is full of executives without the skill, knowledge or leadership to help the company succeed. Then again, forget GM. Why even waste time discussing the merits of such an ineptly managed company with no compelling products and no future? Buy a Honda.

By: Lost Prius to wife

Lost Prius to wife — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:11:44 +0000

hybridgreg, we will agree to disagree and not be disagreeable. I have read Dr. Douglas’ report (and also noticed the ironic and hilarious location for the site’s link) and have found, from researching some of his statements, some possible problems with his statements and information. But even as we discuss this topic, Scientific American has an article by an author raising the question of whether or not global warming is mainly the result of solar function. There are still questions being raised, and to be raised, on this subject. The very recent loss of the $278M Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite was unfortunate; it would have help to resolve a lot of questioning. Hopefully, people will read what we two have written, will do their own research, and come to their own conclusions. Again, we will agree to disagree.

By: Timothy J Bradley

Timothy J Bradley — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:32:14 +0000

Sorry Kerry Bradshaw, it was Samie who ticked me off with his insiders abrievo.

By: Timothy J Bradley

Timothy J Bradley — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:29:03 +0000

Kerry Bradshaw – what in the world made you think everyone understands your private “w/c” language? Rather arogant of you!

By: hybridgreg

hybridgreg — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:57:17 +0000

This will be my last reply to you. I did go to your “reference” below and when I got it there it suggested I see Dr Douglass’ report in which he debunks most of the global warming hysteria. I appreciate your honesty in suggesting it to me. However, I never intended on getting into a lengthy discussion with you over global warming. Let’s just agree to disagree and not be disagreeable. The people on this website are intelligent enough to arrive at their own conclusions.

(Ref. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/sealevel)

Global Warming Hoax
Find out how scientists, government are fooling the public.
http://www.douglassreport

Take Care
HybridGreg

By: Lost Prius to wife

Lost Prius to wife — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:26:39 +0000

You asked for it, hybridgreg. The information / serious research that you are requesting this in the citations and references to the Wikipedia site on global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). Since I wanted to make sure at what I was quoting and its validity, I opened a few of the citing / references / data given, including ones arguing against global warming. After looking at them, I then opened some of the citing / references / data given in those citing / references / data. And then I went down even further into the citing / references / data given within one of those citing / references / data. Most, if not all of the data, were peer reviewed and not censored by any leadership as implied by you. Feel free to prove that all those conclusions, based off of tens of thousands of pieces of data (data, not opinions) by the likes of NASA, EPA, American Meteorological Society, National Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society, were falsified and / or slanted of view. I am sure that all the peers that reviewed these papers would appreciate knowing how they missed all the falsified data and / or slanting of view. And you cannot tell me there are no newspeople out there that would not practically sell their souls for such a story of falsification of data and slanting of view.

The body of evidence for global warming easily over whelms the smattering of evidence against global warming. The real question is not whether or not there is global warming. The real question is how much, how fast, and mankinds involvement.

hybridgreg, you are right about one item; Florida would not be as devastated by a 36 inches rise in sea level as I thought. The areas that would be most devastated by 36 inches or less rise in sea level are:

Hampton Harbor in New Hampshire
Salisbury, Plum Island, Essex Bay, Lynn Harbor, Revere, and Boston in Massachusetts
Long Island, New York
Newark and Jersey City in New Jersey along with the New Jersey coastline
Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay
Most of the North Carolina and South Carolina coastlines
Savannah, Georgia
The Louisiana and Texas coastlines

The west coast changes are:
A lake or bay will start to form between Sacramento, California and Tracy, California about 20 miles wide
Both the San Francisco Bay and Monterey Bay areas would start suffering significant land losses

(Ref. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/sealevel)

By: hybridgreg

hybridgreg — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:25:35 +0000

I refer to their leadership in the only way that one refers to organizations where the voices of rank and file members are not given a voice… but the leadership makes pronouncements, as if they speak in only one voice… ideologs and agendized biased political hacks. Most are sincere researchers, but I can spot frauds that are more interested in pushing an agenda, rather than provide good science. As an engineering instructor, I see the differences every day. So, please, if you want to “name drop” organizations as a way of justifying some unsubstantiated theory, remember, we all pay a heavy price for not confirming their pronouncements. Show me the studies and not their abstracts (which get printed in newspapers as “facts”). I have seen too much of that dribble to accept something simply because it shows up on the front pages New York Times or attempts to take serious research that are interpreted by politicans and some scurrilous sicentists as a way to advance their pet projects. This forum is not the place to have contests based on the names of organizations. It for serious discussions where opinions are taken and accepted or not.