Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

"Addiction" means that if there is a withdrawal of the substance one is addicted to there follows a nervous breakdown of a magnitude directly proportional to the strength of the addiction.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

"Addiction" means that if there is a withdrawal of the substance one is addicted to there follows a nervous breakdown of a magnitude directly proportional to the strength of the addiction.

Which is EXACTLY what America has. Actually what America has is probably worse than addiction, as the magnitude of a breakdown would be FAR worse than the addiction itself.

0 Replies

I have often shocked people in the pub who were indulging themselves with outrage freakouts about drug use by telling them that their own addiction to oil far surpassed any addiction drug users have. And that at least drug users were only screwing themselves up, not the whole bloody earth.

In fact oil addiction is incurable in a democracy because it is in symbiosis with other addictions such as sex, ego power projections and self preservation.

0 Replies

I have been a wellness educator for about 7 years and I have delt with the nature of addiction as a topic of discussion seceral times.

The thing about addiction is that the chmical responce in our body that is triggered is the same resopnce our body has when it's dying. If we need water, our body let's us know. the pyschology of the addict is that they NEED what ever IT is that they are addicted to.

Addiction is not a matter of desire but a pervrsion of need.

If you think of the USA as a collective boddy with several moving parts, systems etc, addiction would be defined as the precieved NEED for something. Withdraw would certainly occur.

"Addiction is a fair word."

T
K
O

0 Replies

Mr Bush used the word, and the phrase, in a State of the Union address.

Every word in such a speech is a subject of lengthy discussion.

I saw the speech live and I was astounded by the use of that word.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I have often shocked people in the pub who were indulging themselves with outrage freakouts about drug use by telling them that their own addiction to oil far surpassed any addiction drug users have. And that at least drug users were only screwing themselves up, not the whole bloody earth.

In fact oil addiction is incurable in a democracy because it is in symbiosis with other addictions such as sex, ego power projections and self preservation.

Oil makes our engines and machines run. Oil heats our shelters when it's too cold outside. So from the above discourse, I conclude we are addicted to our engines and machines running and our shelters not being too cold.

That's sort of like saying we are addicted to thinking, moving, breathing, drinking, eating, loving, peeing and pooping. More accurately, that's equivalent to saying we are addicted to living.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Mr Bush used the word, and the phrase, in a State of the Union address.

Every word in such a speech is a subject of lengthy discussion.

I saw the speech live and I was astounded by the use of that word.

so was I

but then wayback in Jimmy Carter's day, he warned about oil dependency.

America is the biggest oil addict. But then they have the biggest military.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

spendius wrote:
I have often shocked people in the pub who were indulging themselves with outrage freakouts about drug use by telling them that their own addiction to oil far surpassed any addiction drug users have. And that at least drug users were only screwing themselves up, not the whole bloody earth.

In fact oil addiction is incurable in a democracy because it is in symbiosis with other addictions such as sex, ego power projections and self preservation.

Oil makes our engines and machines run. Oil heats our shelters when it's too cold outside. So from the above discourse, I conclude we are addicted to our engines and machines running and our shelters not being too cold.

That's sort of like saying we are addicted to thinking, moving, breathing, drinking, eating, loving, peeing and pooping. More accurately, that's equivalent to saying we are addicted to living.

This is factually untrue.

You could place a person on an island without any access to oil, and they could get along well enough for quite some time. There are other technologies to replace it. Oil is not necessary to run an engine or heat a house.

On the other hand, there is no replacement for thinking, moving, eating, eliminating. Bad analogy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oil is not necessary to run an engine or heat a house.

True but try doing without it and a lot of people are going to be a)stationary
b)cold
c)in the mood for riot

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oil is not necessary to run an engine or heat a house.
True but try doing without it and a lot of people are going to be a)stationary
b)cold
c)in the mood for riot

Oh darn, reality is going to make things tough for a while?

Jeez, that's never happened before in human history!

C'mon you guys, enough with the negativity and lack of belief in human innovation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
spendius wrote:
I have often shocked people in the pub who were indulging themselves with outrage freakouts about drug use by telling them that their own addiction to oil far surpassed any addiction drug users have. And that at least drug users were only screwing themselves up, not the whole bloody earth.

In fact oil addiction is incurable in a democracy because it is in symbiosis with other addictions such as sex, ego power projections and self preservation.

Oil makes our engines and machines run. Oil heats our shelters when it's too cold outside. So from the above discourse, I conclude we are addicted to our engines and machines running and our shelters not being too cold.

That's sort of like saying we are addicted to thinking, moving, breathing, drinking, eating, loving, peeing and pooping. More accurately, that's equivalent to saying we are addicted to living.

This is factually untrue.

You could place a person on an island without any access to oil, and they could get along well enough for quite some time. There are other technologies to replace it. Oil is not necessary to run an engine or heat a house.

Depends on the nature of that island, the engines available on that island, and the alternate energy sources that are actually available to drive those engines should any be needed to live the way one wants, or simply live whatever way is possible. A water wheel and falling water might be sufficient.

On the other hand, there is no replacement for thinking, moving, eating, eliminating. Bad analogy.

Sure there is an alternative to all that. Dying! Suicidal terrorists choose that alternative frequently.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think is the primary cause of both Earth and Mars warming?

Why do you thing Anarctic is cooling, while Arctic is warming?

Do you think CO2 in Earth's atmosphere does not reflect at least as much heat radiated by the sun back into space as it reflects heat radiated by the earth back to the earth?

Do you think we ought to find a substitute for the CO2 we and the rest of the world's animals exhale?

0 Replies

I think that your questions are silly and not serious at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There is nothing another human being can say that isn't serious. To think otherwise is to be an egomaniac and possibly due to having too many close and valued friends who have bent over backwards to show you in the best possible light.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that your questions are silly and not serious at all.

Cycloptichorn

I think my questions are serious and not silly at all. So answer them if you can!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think that your questions are silly and not serious at all.

Cycloptichorn

I think my questions are serious and not silly at all. So answer them if you can!

This is the only one I think is worth answering:

Quote:

Do you think we ought to find a substitute for the CO2 we and the rest of the world's animals exhale?

I think that you should try Laughing

feel free to start your experiments at home.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

all right, icann.

1. It isn't clear that Mars is in fact warming, or that it is warming overall, or that there is any sort of long term warming going on there. Observation period too short, too many unknown variables. The earth is very clearly warming because of increased anthropogenic CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse effects of lesser significance, like increased methane).

2. The Antarctic too seems to be warming. The Ross ice shelf, for example, is fissioning large chunks.

3. Energy from the sun is absorbed by the earth as heat. When it is reradiated from the earth it is at a different wavelength than when it came in. The original wavelength is not reflected by CO2. The reradiated wavelength is. So CO2 dooes not reflect heat from the sun back into space. It only reflects the reradiated energy back to earth.

4. This question is really dumb, as parados points out. I can only assume you aren't serious. If you know elementary biology you know animal respiration cycles inevitably produce CO2. No one is suggesting we stop breathing. What we should find substitutes or sequestration methods for, are the fossil fuel CO2 from cars and trucks and electricity production. The head of the IPCC says the cost to the US economy to hold global warming to 2degrees C will be 0.12% of GDP. Whgich means that where the economy would be at the start of 2030, if there were no change in increase of CO2 emissions, would instead be reached in August, 2030, if we act to control them. Damn, how can we possibly live with such a cataclysmic effect on the economy??????? (Just in case you're sarcasm-challenged, that's sarcasm).

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

More accurately, that's equivalent to saying we are addicted to living.

Never in my wildest dream would I have thought I might ever agree with Ican. But we are addicted to living, and to live we need energy in the form of food. (Try living without eating). Today nearly all our manual work is done for us by machines, and they need energy too. In fact they require a great deal of it. But the good news is that machine food has been plentiful, actually spewing out of the ground if you know where to look. No wonder people fight over it.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
More accurately, that's equivalent to saying we are addicted to living.

Never in my wildest dream would I have thought I might ever agree with Ican. But we are addicted to living, and to live we need energy in the form of food. (Try living without eating). Today nearly all our manual work is done for us by machines, and they need energy too. In fact they require a great deal of it. But the good news is that machine food has been plentiful, actually spewing out of the ground if you know where to look. No wonder people fight over it.

Clearly, the solution lies in getting machines to eat people.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
More accurately, that's equivalent to saying we are addicted to living.

Never in my wildest dream would I have thought I might ever agree with Ican. But we are addicted to living, and to live we need energy in the form of food. (Try living without eating). Today nearly all our manual work is done for us by machines, and they need energy too. In fact they require a great deal of it. But the good news is that machine food has been plentiful, actually spewing out of the ground if you know where to look. No wonder people fight over it.

Clearly, the solution lies in getting machines to eat people.

You know just occasionally, from BC to Manhattan, like a red flash in the sky a brilliant idea comes in to land on a2k. Nice one bernie Smile

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

blatham wrote:
Quote:
You got it blatham. If rightists are skeptical of AGW and leftists are believers, that means GW is a political issue, not a science issue.

A false and unnecessary binary opposition. It is both. There are, of course, very many conservatives (and republicans) who share my views on AGW.
We do agree then Blatham.
So next time I bring up a story, please dont reply with petty investigative rhetorics like :" Writes for National Review Online. Has some pieces on "liberal bias in the press"...

Oh and how about this AGW skeptic, with impeccable liberal pedigree? A guy who managed to reconcile anti-corporate rant and AGW skepticism. Ah, the power of words :

Denis Rancourt

Quote:
I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.

I'm afraid you won't get your wish, minitax.

There are two streams of activity observable related to GW. One is the broad and varied scientific investigation itself and the second is the public relations initiatives/activities. In the US (elsewhere too, but the US is my particular interest) the science on GW has been acutely politicized and that is a necessary element we have to look at in understanding what is going on and in helping us judge credibility of the voices making claims. The Republican Party of Texas has, as part of its platform, the statement that "global warming is a hoax". It follows, unless we just want to be purposefully dumb, that any information originating out of the Republican Party of Texas will be incomplete, at best. And again, unless we wish to be purposefully even dumber, we'll honestly face the connections between the Texas Republican Party and the oil industry in that state.

The National Review (I don't know how familiar you are with the publication) has a significant place in the history of the development of the modern conservative movement. Lots of information available on this, some small bit of it noted in Krugman's new book. It has had and has openly forwarded an explicit political agenda (it doesn't do 'reportage') that is pro-business and anti-regulation. The founder, though I actually like the guy for his stunning intelligence and zest for the intellectual life, is a classic Platonic elitist but then again, what serious Catholic isn't? If a writer is affiliated with The National Review, his ideological stance will be predictable to some certainty around 95 per cent. And not just on GW but certainly including it presently.

Affiliations such as I've just been discussing are deeply important to any proper and full understanding of the objectivity (or lack) of claims made about GW, among many other matters.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know