Needless to say, the blogosphere is up in arms. Why so much outrage? Lutz followed his statement by discussing plans for hybrid cars, a regret that GM allowed Toyota to corner the market with the Prius, and a push for GM’s own hybrid, the Volt. So why does anyone care what an executive at a car company thinks about a scientific debate?
The answer is that the global warming debate has long since left the realm of science. Scientists tend to produce tedious reports, full of charts, graphs, and long words. It’s so much easier to listen to Al Gore- a politician with no expertise to make him a credible source. Or, if you’re of the other camp, listen to Bob Lutz- who at least has the honesty to admit, “Having said that, my opinion doesn’t matter.”
Both sides of the global warming debate have pushed the issue from a scientific inquiry to a matter of faith. The critics of Bob Lutz are not angry that he is siding with one group of scientists over another. They are angry because he has broken the faith. Everyone loses when an undecided question of fact is co-opted by mysticism. The nature and causes of climate change are a valid topic for inquiry, but that inquiry is perverted and prevented by a movement that treats it as beyond question.
The Undercurrent is a magazine distributed at college campuses and communities across the country. We release a print edition once per semester, and in the interim, regularly post additional articles, blog entries, and campus media responses reports to our website.
The Undercurrent's cultural commentary is based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Objectivism, which animates Ayn Rand's fiction, is a systematic philosophy of life. It holds that the universe is orderly and comprehensible, that man survives by reason, that his life and happiness comprise his highest moral purpose, and that he flourishes only in a society that protects his individual rights.
Subscribe to TU
If you enjoy The Undercurrent, please consider giving a tax-deductible donation in support.