Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

williatw
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

Netmaker wrote:
williatw wrote: However the part about the "immortal" Stalin type had more cred though.
It wouldn't have to be a Stalin type. Just your average fortune 500 CEO who thinks only of his/her own stock options and doesn't care whether the company or country survives as long as they get their cut.

The general danger is the accumulation of overwhelming power whether that power be economic or political.
Yes but now they behave that way because "long term" he will die as will we all. But of course if his lifespan is centuries + he would inevitably start being more concerned with longterm. Rush Limbaugh is a climate "skeptic" because some part of him knows that if the world goes to hell in a hand basket by 2100 he won't live to see it so he consequently does not give a rip. He knows his cigar chomping butt would be very lucky to see 2050 with current tech let alone 2100. The taxes however he fears he would have to pay are very real to him and much more so than a "hypothetical" global warming. But what if he knew he had a pretty good chance to see 2200? He would be far more likely to reason that even if he thinks those global warming people are charlatans....just the in his eyes small probability that they could be right might cause him to think it is not worth the risk of doing nothing. I mean 6 billion tons of CO2 a year added to the earth's atmosphere every year in increasing amounts..whether you think the climate models are bovine fecal matter or not.

Netmaker
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by Netmaker »

williatw wrote:
Netmaker wrote:
williatw wrote: However the part about the "immortal" Stalin type had more cred though.
It wouldn't have to be a Stalin type. Just your average fortune 500 CEO who thinks only of his/her own stock options and doesn't care whether the company or country survives as long as they get their cut.

The general danger is the accumulation of overwhelming power whether that power be economic or political.
Yes but now they behave that way because "long term" he will die as will we all. But of course if his lifespan is centuries + he would inevitably start being more concerned with longterm. Rush Limbaugh is a climate "skeptic" because some part of him knows that if the world goes to hell in a hand basket by 2100 he won't live to see it so he consequently does not give a rip. He knows his cigar chomping butt would be very lucky to see 2050 with current tech let alone 2100. The taxes however he fears he would have to pay are very real to him and much more so than a "hypothetical" global warming. But what if he knew he had a pretty good chance to see 2200? He would be far more likely to reason that even if he thinks those global warming people are charlatans....just the in his eyes small probability that they could be right might cause him to think it is not worth the risk of doing nothing. I mean 6 billion tons of CO2 a year added to the earth's atmosphere every year in increasing amounts..whether you think the climate models are bovine fecal matter or not.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the release of methane from ice, permafrost (Siberian & Canadian peat bogs) and ocean floor hydrates. Far harder to model and much more likely to spike and turn the current climate model temperature highs into floors.

Irrational/psychopathic/narcissistic/sociopathic people are not suddenly going to become rational just because they are going to live longer. Their disorders are likely to be biologically based and would require separate treatment if their condition is even treatable at all.

A basic trap that rational people tend to fall into is that if the person on the other side of an argument only had and understood all of the facts they would come to a rational conclusion. This fails when the other party is not even "wired" to be able to make rational decisions.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Netmaker wrote:
williatw wrote: However the part about the "immortal" Stalin type had more cred though.
It wouldn't have to be a Stalin type. Just your average fortune 500 CEO who thinks only of his/her own stock options and doesn't care whether the company or country survives as long as they get their cut.

The general danger is the accumulation of overwhelming power whether that power be economic or political.
Yes but now they behave that way because "long term" he will die as will we all. But of course if his lifespan is centuries + he would inevitably start being more concerned with longterm. Rush Limbaugh is a climate "skeptic" because some part of him knows that if the world goes to hell in a hand basket by 2100 he won't live to see it so he consequently does not give a rip. He knows his cigar chomping butt would be very lucky to see 2050 with current tech let alone 2100. The taxes however he fears he would have to pay are very real to him and much more so than a "hypothetical" global warming. But what if he knew he had a pretty good chance to see 2200? He would be far more likely to reason that even if he thinks those global warming people are charlatans....just the in his eyes small probability that they could be right might cause him to think it is not worth the risk of doing nothing. I mean 6 billion tons of CO2 a year added to the earth's atmosphere every year in increasing amounts..whether you think the climate models are bovine fecal matter or not.


I think you are completely wrong here. Rush Limbaugh is a skeptic because he suspects the motives of everyone pushing the Global Warming theory, and because all the actual science indicates it is entirely a crock of crap.

When I first considered the theory that Carbon Dioxide might cause the atmosphere to heat up, I thought it was a reasonable idea except for one thing. The people pushing it were liberals, and liberals have never been right about anything. I asked myself, how could a group of people, who throughout history have ALWAYS been wrong, be right about this? They had been, up till then, a PERFECT reverse barometer. All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.

So I was puzzled at first. Then I ran across this chart at JunkScience.com and realized instantly that Liberals were wrong about this too.

Image

The world still makes sense.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Netmaker
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by Netmaker »

Diogenes wrote:All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.
Lolz.

So according to your beliefs because that liberal President Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki we should have instead invaded the Japanese home islands, extended the war and gone for the 1 million in deaths and casualties that our military leaders of the time estimated would result from such an invasion.

Given the cost of taking Iwo Jima, I'm sure the USMC would just love your logic.

Goodbye, stupid old woman.

williatw
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:I think you are completely wrong here. Rush Limbaugh is a skeptic because he suspects the motives of everyone pushing the Global Warming theory, and because all the actual science indicates it is entirely a crock of crap.
When I first considered the theory that Carbon Dioxide might cause the atmosphere to heat up, I thought it was a reasonable idea except for one thing. The people pushing it were liberals, and liberals have never been right about anything. I asked myself, how could a group of people, who throughout history have ALWAYS been wrong, be right about this? They had been, up till then, a PERFECT reverse barometer. All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.

So I was puzzled at first. .
Lets say for the sake of argument that you know all the people behind the GW concern are incompetent or hysterics or charlatans. Their data about warming is s*&%. Would you still allow people to continue to dump 6 billion tons of CO2 plus other pollutants in the air we all have to breathe year after year after year if you thought you yourself would be around for the next 200yrs plus+? You might not decide it would be better to gets us off of fossil fuels gradually expeditiously, that it was not worth taking the risk long-term that even if our current "data" is suspect long term it is not worth the risk doing nothing accept business as usual?
Last edited by williatw on Wed May 02, 2012 11:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Global climate aside, the outrage over "only the richest" having access to life extension would match or dwarf any other popular discontent in human history. It would get voted into accessibility in a hurry. Welfare handouts are chump change in comparison.

And yep the Long View will get a lot of new adherents. Even if it's fairly obscure at first, it'll be hard to ignore those who get on the bandwagon early and reap some pretty hard to ignore benefits.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

Diogenes wrote:When I first considered the theory that Carbon Dioxide might cause the atmosphere to heat up, I thought it was a reasonable idea except for one thing. The people pushing it were liberals, and liberals have never been right about anything. I asked myself, how could a group of people, who throughout history have ALWAYS been wrong, be right about this? They had been, up till then, a PERFECT reverse barometer. All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.

So I was puzzled at first. Then I ran across this chart at JunkScience.com and realized instantly that Liberals were wrong about this too.

The world still makes sense.
Oh deary me, that's quite, erm, special Diogenes... :wink:

williatw
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

Netmaker wrote:Personally, I'm more concerned about the release of methane from ice, permafrost (Siberian & Canadian peat bogs) and ocean floor hydrates. Far harder to model and much more likely to spike and turn the current climate model temperature highs into floors.

Irrational/psychopathic/narcissistic/sociopathic people are not suddenly going to become rational just because they are going to live longer. Their disorders are likely to be biologically based and would require separate treatment if their condition is even treatable at all. A basic trap that rational people tend to fall into is that if the person on the other side of an argument only had and understood all of the facts they would come to a rational conclusion. This fails when the other party is not even "wired" to be able to make rational decisions.

Yes those methane hydrates concern me too..hate to see what would happen if they were quickly released over a few decades. You may have a point with Limbaugh though...sure he could rationalize his way out of it even if he lived to see Manhattan Island(or even Florida) under water in 100yrs. Wouldn't be his fault...he never said that, even when confronted with his old footage showing he did.

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

Diogenes wrote: liberals have never been right about anything.
The Afro-American civil rights movement?

williatw
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

Betruger wrote:Global climate aside, the outrage over "only the richest" having access to life extension would match or dwarf any other popular discontent in human history. It would get voted into accessibility in a hurry. Welfare handouts are chump change in comparison.

And yep the Long View will get a lot of new adherents. Even if it's fairly obscure at first, it'll be hard to ignore those who get on the bandwagon early and reap some pretty hard to ignore benefits.
Of course what we do now for health care in the developed world ain't cheap. Even if the treatments initially cost 1 million each wouldn't necessarily be that much more expensive than the the last 5yr of life care now. Repeatedly in and out of hospitals, nursing home care, hospice care & the expense of paying pensioners/SS. If you were "rejuvenated" and kept that way on the govs dime it would have to be with the understanding that now you have to go back to work(no pension or SS) and be taxed again.
Last edited by williatw on Thu May 03, 2012 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

What price immortality?

Interesting times..
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

CKay wrote:
Diogenes wrote:When I first considered the theory that Carbon Dioxide might cause the atmosphere to heat up, I thought it was a reasonable idea except for one thing. The people pushing it were liberals, and liberals have never been right about anything. I asked myself, how could a group of people, who throughout history have ALWAYS been wrong, be right about this? They had been, up till then, a PERFECT reverse barometer. All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.

So I was puzzled at first. Then I ran across this chart at JunkScience.com and realized instantly that Liberals were wrong about this too.

The world still makes sense.
Oh deary me, that's quite, erm, special Diogenes... :wink:
So you don't understand what that chart means? It means that water vapor has a vastly larger greenhouse effect than CO2.

As for why the climate models are largely junk, a major part is how they take a worst case scenario of CO2 warming adding water vapor to the atmosphere keeping heat in, but completely neglect any (admittedly poorly understood) cooling effect from cloud cover. They also neglect the impact of solar variance and changing cosmic ray cloud seeding, along with many other factors. Add to that the difficulties of getting fluid dynamic models to work right without those complications.

Diogenes, leftists are occasionally correct, but practically never on anything that they hold as really important.

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Post by CKay »

hanelyp wrote:
CKay wrote:
Diogenes wrote:When I first considered the theory that Carbon Dioxide might cause the atmosphere to heat up, I thought it was a reasonable idea except for one thing. The people pushing it were liberals, and liberals have never been right about anything. I asked myself, how could a group of people, who throughout history have ALWAYS been wrong, be right about this? They had been, up till then, a PERFECT reverse barometer. All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.

So I was puzzled at first. Then I ran across this chart at JunkScience.com and realized instantly that Liberals were wrong about this too.

The world still makes sense.
Oh deary me, that's quite, erm, special Diogenes... :wink:
So you don't understand what that chart means?
I was commenting on Diogenes choosing the 'facts' to fit in with his beliefs - an inversion of rational enquiry.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Netmaker wrote:
Diogenes wrote:All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.
Lolz.

So according to your beliefs because that liberal President Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki we should have instead invaded the Japanese home islands, extended the war and gone for the 1 million in deaths and casualties that our military leaders of the time estimated would result from such an invasion.

Given the cost of taking Iwo Jima, I'm sure the USMC would just love your logic.

Truman wasn't so Liberal as you might believe. First of all, he was from Missouri, and during a time period when the Democrats of that era would be regarded as right winged extremists today. By today's standards, Truman would be regarded to the right of Patrick Buchanan.

Even so, Truman DID make one very serious mistake. After World War II, Chang Kia Sheck asked Truman to let him use the Transport Air-Craft which the United States had accumulated as a result of World War II, to move his Nationalist troops around China to confront Mao Tse Tung.

Truman denied the request, and as a result, Chang Kia Sheck was unable to move troops as needed to destroy Mao. The consequences of this were Mao coming to power and causing 50 million deaths that would have been otherwise prevented, notwithstanding the possibility that both Korea and Vietnam may never have occurred had Truman simply lent the Nationalists some D*mn airplanes.




Netmaker wrote: Goodbye, stupid old woman.

Goodbye ignorant young child. :)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I think you are completely wrong here. Rush Limbaugh is a skeptic because he suspects the motives of everyone pushing the Global Warming theory, and because all the actual science indicates it is entirely a crock of crap.
When I first considered the theory that Carbon Dioxide might cause the atmosphere to heat up, I thought it was a reasonable idea except for one thing. The people pushing it were liberals, and liberals have never been right about anything. I asked myself, how could a group of people, who throughout history have ALWAYS been wrong, be right about this? They had been, up till then, a PERFECT reverse barometer. All you had to do to get the right answer to any question was to see what liberals thought, and do the exact opposite.

So I was puzzled at first. .
Lets say for the sake of argument that you know all the people behind the GW concern are incompetent or hysterics or charlatans. Their data about warming is s*&%. Would you still allow people to continue to dump 6 billion tons of CO2 plus other pollutants in the air we all have to breathe year after year after year if you thought you yourself would be around for the next 200yrs plus+? You might not decide it would be better to gets us off of fossil fuels gradually expeditiously, that it was not worth taking the risk long-term that even if our current "data" is suspect long term it is not worth the risk doing nothing accept business as usual?

I don't know about you, but I have children, and I am very concerned about the world in which they will have to live after I am gone. At this point, the greatest threat to them is not air pollution or man caused global warming. (which is a crock of sh*t anyway) The greatest threat to them is socialism.

It has killed more people than any other non natural cause in history, and we are slowly being goose stepped into it. *I* am personally taking steps to try to improve the fossil fuel/ pollution issue, as well as to improve the situation with regards to socialists and Islamic terrorists.

I am putting together a Natural Gas filling station and I intend to do what I can to spur the switch from Petroleum based transport fuels to Domestic natural gas. Sure, natural gas is still a "fossil fuel" (the term "fossil fuel" is bullsh*t. Burnable hydrocarbons are create through an a-biotic process) but we have an amazing abundance of it, and the more of it we use, the less we will need foreign oil. (Thereby cutting off the money supply to nations who support terrorism) It also doesn't require expensive refineries, burns cleaner and does less damage to engines.

It also helps to fight socialism; Currently there are NO TAXES on it. I could go on, but you probably don't have time to listen to all the different ways in which I see the use of natural gas as being a way to fight socialism, terrorism, economic depression, and boost America's independence.

It will give us breathing room until BETTER energy systems are developed in the future. I'm doing something right now!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Post Reply