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

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

Post by Diogenes »

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:

Stick around. Eventually you might learn enough to have an opinion worth listening to. :)
‘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:
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.


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46445
‘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 »

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

An effort necessitated by Democrats refusal to obey the law since 1868. They went from denying them equal rights on the basis of race to giving them preferential treatment on the basis of race.

So yeah, in the manner which Liberals have dealt with the civil rights movement, they have been completely wrong. What is it about the term EQUAL that Liberals do not understand?
‘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 »

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? 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.
My comments on this topic are intended more to promote outrage from leftists than to be regarded as a serious position. (I enjoy watching them screech.) That being said, while I agree with the possibility that leftest might be correct about something, no obvious examples come to mind. :)

Even if they had a redeeming example, a raindrop in the desert can hardly be expected to compensate for all the other times they were wrong, nor the many millions who have suffered and died as a result of their foolishness.
‘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 »

CKay wrote:
hanelyp wrote:
CKay wrote: 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.
You could just develop a sense of humor.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

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

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:[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 will give us breathing room until BETTER energy systems are developed in the future. I'm doing something right now!
Delighted to hear that. I would prefer to hedge my bets and also set higher and higher mpg standards for cars and light trucks. Maybe a 10K or greater tax credit for electric or PHEV vehicles as well. Just because socialism perhaps has killed more to date doesn't mean climate change in the future might not rival(or exceed) that. "Inconclusive" data does not mean 6 billion tons of CO2(an increasing) added to the earth's air every year won't bite us on the butt eventually. Thats the point regardless what you think of why socialists are on the climate change bandwagon doesn't change the material fact of the 6 billion tons annually.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/G ... 531790.php

The loss of ice from the glaciers that cover the island is about 30 percent faster than it was a decade ago, researchers said. That means Greenland's contribution to future sea level rise would be about 4 inches by the year 2100 if ice loss doesn't speed up much more, a study author said.

That may not sound like much, but when other causes of sea rise around the globe are added, the total could still be about 3 feet by the end of the century, researchers said.


Sounds like their not sure...maybe we should do nothing and just wait and see, after all not like if their current relatively optimistic projection turns out to be wrong we would be jeopardizing the viability of the planet or anything.
Last edited by williatw on Fri May 04, 2012 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by CKay »

Diogenes wrote:
CKay wrote:
Diogenes wrote: liberals have never been right about anything.
The Afro-American civil rights movement?
An effort necessitated by Democrats refusal to obey the law since 1868
I guess the connection between Democrats and liberal values is as tenuous as that between Republicans and traditional conservatives values.

The civil rights movement was a liberal movement and they were right.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

CKay wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
CKay wrote: The Afro-American civil rights movement?
An effort necessitated by Democrats refusal to obey the law since 1868
I guess the connection between Democrats and liberal values is as tenuous as that between Republicans and traditional conservatives values.

The civil rights movement was a liberal movement and they were right.
For once, I kinda agree with Diogenes. You just need to look at the Civil Rights act of 1964 to see how wrong you are to claim that Republicans did not support Civil Rights and Democrats did. Maybe you are intentionally using the term 'liberal' to confuse your position - I don't know.

Regardless, I agree with Diogenes that the Republican party has historically been a supporter of equal rights.

I also think that the history of the Democratic party and its opposition to equal rights has been forgotten or re-written once the Democratic party saw the opportunity to gain favor with a significant voting block by taking the issue of equal rights and perverting it into an issue of affirmative action, insuring that those with traditional conservative values could no longer support it, and locking up a group of votes.

Opposition to affirmative action is not the same as opposing equal rights unless it is spun that way. The strategy to change perceptions of Republicans into a bunch of racists was amazingly effective and continues to this day with issues of such as welfare, health care, etc. being spun as racial issues and Republicans characterized as racists.

Not that any of this matters that much now that the entire issue of Civil Rights has been so completely bastardized that it will never be sorted out.

Regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

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

Post by CKay »

seedload wrote:Maybe you are intentionally using the term 'liberal' to confuse your position - I don't know.
Well, I was responding to Diogenes' comment about 'liberals'.

He's the one who subsequently brought the Democrats into this.

He will no doubt contend that liberal and Democrat are interchangeable. But I disagree: not all Democrats are liberal and not all liberals are Democrats.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

CKay wrote:
seedload wrote:Maybe you are intentionally using the term 'liberal' to confuse your position - I don't know.
Well, I was responding to Diogenes' comment about 'liberals'.

He's the one who subsequently brought the Democrats into this.

He will no doubt contend that liberal and Democrat are interchangeable. But I disagree: not all Democrats are liberal and not all liberals are Democrats.
Yes, political terminology is confused and emotionally charged. It is the main factor that makes politics very difficult to discuss with civility.

I disagree on the meaning of 'liberal' if you consider that civil rights is a liberal issue. You don't need to be a liberal to believe that everyone should be treated the same and that there should be some laws to say as much.

Seems to me that the initial division on the Civil Rights movement was a North/South issue and a Right/Wrong issue, not a liberal/conservative issue nor strictly a Republican/Democrat issue. Your post that takes credit for the Civil Rights movement as a great liberal accomplishment is misguided, IMHO.

The later stages of the Civil Rights movement, when it morphed into a matter of unequal treatment under the law is a different matter.

Regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

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

Post by williatw »

Grow your own organs (from your own cells)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could- ... 51147.html

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

Post by Netmaker »

williatw wrote:Grow your own organs (from your own cells)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could- ... 51147.html
They are not talking about growing organs.

The video talks about creating IPS cells from muscle fibroblast cells which may turn out to be very useful presuming the process does not produced damaged IPS cells which has been a problem in the past.

Another issue with IPS cells is getting them to turn into the cell types you desire. Just because you have a cell that "can" turn into any cell type doesn't mean it will become what you want. So while there is reason to have hope with respect to the cell types/tissues that they have already produced as shown in the video that doesn't mean they will be successful in producing all cell types.

In general there's a lot of this type of work going on. For example some scientists have bypassed the step of needing to create IPS cells and have developed a one step method for creating nerve cells directly from skin cells.

Regarding creating whole organs the only human organ that I recall having been created is a bladder. More complex organs require the development of a scaffolding to provide structure/shape and a means of creating not only cell types specific to the organ but also creating vascular networks within the organ itself. While the organ is being grown it also needs nutrients, oxygen and waste removal.

Growing an organ is significantly more complex than creating tissue samples in a petri dish or free floating cells in a flask. We'll get there but it's likely that we'll be using repair techniques for a long type before we reach the ability to replace defective organs. My opinion - you're personal knowledge and mileage may vary.

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

Post by williatw »

Netmaker wrote:
williatw wrote:Grow your own organs (from your own cells)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could- ... 51147.html
They are not talking about growing organs.

The video talks about creating IPS cells from muscle fibroblast cells which may turn out to be very useful presuming the process does not produced damaged IPS cells which has been a problem in the past.

Another issue with IPS cells is getting them to turn into the cell types you desire. Just because you have a cell that "can" turn into any cell type doesn't mean it will become what you want. So while there is reason to have hope with respect to the cell types/tissues that they have already produced as shown in the video that doesn't mean they will be successful in producing all cell types.

In general there's a lot of this type of work going on. For example some scientists have bypassed the step of needing to create IPS cells and have developed a one step method for creating nerve cells directly from skin cells.

Regarding creating whole organs the only human organ that I recall having been created is a bladder. More complex organs require the development of a scaffolding to provide structure/shape and a means of creating not only cell types specific to the organ but also creating vascular networks within the organ itself. While the organ is being grown it also needs nutrients, oxygen and waste removal.

Growing an organ is significantly more complex than creating tissue samples in a petri dish or free floating cells in a flask. We'll get there but it's likely that we'll be using repair techniques for a long type before we reach the ability to replace defective organs. My opinion - you're personal knowledge and mileage may vary.
Yeah you are right....got carried away by the title, should have known it was too good to be true. There is however an off-shoot of the the methuseleuh mouse prize from the same group, one for growing human organs, far as I know hasn't been claimed yet.

vernes
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by vernes »

choff wrote:Quite often what works on mice doesn't work on humans, but assuming it does and we all live three times longer, overpopulation becomes an issue. Only countered by having a third as many children, babies would become a very rare sight.
Deal! Problem solved.

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

Post by Diogenes »

CKay wrote:
seedload wrote:Maybe you are intentionally using the term 'liberal' to confuse your position - I don't know.
Well, I was responding to Diogenes' comment about 'liberals'.

He's the one who subsequently brought the Democrats into this.

He will no doubt contend that liberal and Democrat are interchangeable. But I disagree: not all Democrats are liberal and not all liberals are Democrats.

Nowadays, that is truer than ever. Democrat and Liberal are pretty much interchangeable.

If I recall properly, you are in Britain, and likely do not have a good working knowledge of the history of the left in the United States. Learn about Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and you will better understand the relationship between Democrats and Liberals.
‘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