General Motors is full of crocks

Everybody and their mother has already blogged on the anti-science declaration by GM Vice Chair Bob Lutz, who dismissed global warming as a “total crock of shit.”

I didn’t think I had much to add to the well-deserved trashing he received — until I looked up the word “crock.” Wikipedia explains:

Especially in engineering, a crock is a botched attempt or design to achieve something. An automobile with intentionally designed square wheels would be a crock.


Hmm. What car company makes crocks? Could it be a car company that has been losing market share for decades?

This meaning of crock may well derive from “Norwegian krake, sickly animal, and Middle Dutch kraecke, broken-down horse” — yet another perfect metaphor for General Motors.

How can a global manufacturing and technology company run by someone who doesn’t believe in science — and if you think global warming is a “crock of shit” then you definitely do not believe in science — succeed in the advanced car market of the 21st century? The question answer itself.

10 Responses to General Motors is full of crocks

  1. Joe says:

    I think your are full of crock for believing for what many scientists also believe is not true. They are just as many scientists who disbelieve that theory. It’s just a theory and anyone can be just as right as the other in believing what they want.

  2. jcwinnie says:

    @Kimchi Joe-
    Sort of like the theory of evolution or a theory about gravity, eh?

  3. CMann says:

    First commenter Joe seems to be the perfect GM employee or customer. On second thought, is he a GM board member?

  4. Mr.Mom says:

    Hey this post is classified as humor, so that comment fit right in.

  5. Sorghum Crow says:

    Ah the old “it’s just a theory” crock. Joe (not Romm) above must not have been paying attention when theory was defined.

    How do these denyers manage to be the first commenters so often? Don’t they have anything better to do than sit around and wait for new blog entries? I guess I shouldn’t complain; at least they’re not driving around in their SUVs.

  6. Ronald says:

    We can criticize the chairman of GM, but the stress over there must be enormous. GM lost 38 billion dollars last year. That he would try to get some favor from the global warming is not man-made crowd is somewhat understandable. I don’t envy his job and I don’t envy people who have to make the decision between an income or livelihood for my family and working in an industry that is polluting the planet. This global warming thing runs thru so much of everything we do.

  7. Paul K says:

    General Motors is the American leader in clean car technologies. They produce a widening array of quality hybrid and flex fuel vehicles. They are heavily invested in plug-in development. No car company other than Toyota can match its positive achievements. They are as committed as you to carbon free transportation. Yet, you vilify them because the reason for their commitment differs from yours. To you it is a matter of global warming. For GM it is economic survival. The desired end result is the same and you will reach that result much faster if you abandon the divisive negativity and find areas of shared interest to work together.

  8. CMann says:

    You want “areas of shared interest to work together”? The GM Vice Chair didn’t exactly show that with his bone-headed remarks. Why are you defending him, given your standard? What about asking him to abandon his “divisive negativity”? We little people aren’t nearly so powerful and influential, but swing away if it makes you feel better.

    OK, I’ll give them this: Many people believe GM (finally) is truly serious and committed to the green car cause, whatever its motive. While there is good reason to stay skeptical, given its history and Lutz’s comments, I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt. I really hope so, for the benfit of the consumer, the planet, and GM itself. If the Volt or plug-in Vue is close to meeting expectations and I can afford one, I’ll eagerly buy a new one as soon as possible.

    But in fairness, one parting swing that I think GM deserves. In addition to its sorry history (EV-1, etc.), last I checked GM still ranks dead last in fleet MPG, no matter how you spin it. And the flex fuel feature is OK for flexibility on down the line, but does nothing for greenness in the present or near term, and is very possibly a net environmental detriment in the long term.

    If GM fails, the blame won’t fall on bloggers.

  9. Josh says:

    I wish that I didn’t know how to us my brain like most of yall. So when some guy said global warming is real and he made a movie about it i just accepted what he told me as gospel. It must be true he made a movie everything in movies is real right? o yeah forget that pretty much every scientist believes that Al Gore’s theory is wrong, and that the majority of scientist think that the earth goes through warm and cold periods and that right now we’re coming up on the end of the current warm period. I live in new mexico and we just had the coldest winter since they’ve been keeping records, and this summer we aren’t even coming close to the record temps. that by the way were set in 1943 where there was alot less pollution and carbon monoxide in the world. All you people who just take what someone tells you and believes with weighing all the evidence please explain to me why is its only 66 out in New Mexico in the middle of June.

  10. Ronald
    Your sympathy for GM’s management may be misplaced.

    The car companies were right in there with the coal and oil companies trying to prevent the development of renewable energy, confusing the public about the issues. Read the book “The Heat Is On” by Ross Gelbspan
    You will then understand the scope and deliberateness with which they went about trying to confuse the public about global warming. They have actually been caught saying that the science for AGW was getting stronger and closing in on them, but advised continuting the campaign to drive a wedge in the gap of what at first was a sliver of doubt in the public’s mind. That’s good PR. And it’s criminal, considering the serioiusness of the issue for all humans.
    It’s they who fund the handful of skeptic scientists. And fund the phony scientific meetings where hundreds or thousands supposed skeptic scientists meet, where they are bribed with $1,000 a speech and $10,000 a paper to refute AGW.
    This is done through right wing propaganda mills like the Heartland Institue and American Enterprise Institute, neither of which is a scientific organization, nor a research center for that matter.
    Expenses paid trips for the attendees. Real scientific conferences look nothing like that.

    If you think there is no consensus, take a look at this site.

    Here’s the dope on the Oregon Petition and the nutty founder of the group that put out the hoax. This non- climate scientist has a pet theory that the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the more wonderful life on earth will be. He credits the industrial revolution with making the earth’s environment healthier, because of all the CO2. The more the better, by his reckoning. If you believe any of this nonsense, you are not smarter than a fifth grader.