OT: Post Turtle

*-*-*-damaged-retina+*-cochlea-*-cells+bone.marrow+paralyzed.mice+commercially-available-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-*-move-and-walk+*-increase-*-rate-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-enzyme-*-converts-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-*-*-spinal-*-injury-*-*-can-*-walk-*-*-*+heart.disease*-throughout-*-China-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-regenerate-*-*-nerve-cells

I assume John and I both were referring to and addressing your notion, up thread specifically respecting embryonic stem cells:

"Surely you're aware of the status of Federal funding WRT research on embryonic stem cells ...and that many future products start as projects in universities.

Having to make a redundant set of facilities which can ONLY use NON-Federal $$ has slowed (*stopped* in many places) what should be work toward very promising therapies .

..and do I really have to say "losing our competitive edge" in this area where predictions were that we would be creating new jobs to counter the offshoring? Thanks for nothing, Dubya."

AIUI, you blamed President Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells for lack of progress in stem cell research. So I asked for specific examples showing such an impact, e.g., of successful treatments that required those specific cells.

IOW, I presumed your opinion was based on some information, and wondered what evidence informed that view.

I did not see any examples in your cite.

Best, James Arthur

That article lists only one current "stem cell" therapy, bone marrow transplants, which have been used for over 30 years. That has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells.

Reminds me of the "nanotech" promoters who take credit for IC's, or for anything else that happens to be small.

John

No, that was me. Snipe? Only if you are hypersensitive. My point was that that particular therapy didn't save his life.

Stem cells may turn out to be useful, but they are over-hyped for political reasons. I can see the anti position; it would be morally dicey to create embryos just to harvest their parts.

John

You are talking about modelling the weather. Climate modelling is more manageable, because you reduce the madly fluctuating weather to rather more stable averages, and go on from there.

Undeniable, which is why the ice core data was so important - several hundred thousand years of real data to test the models on. And the raw data did demonstrate that extra CO2 in the atmosphere did make the world warmer.

You may not understand the mechanism, which does go a long way to validating Ricard Henry's point, but the data is unambiguous.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but in Sydeney at the moment).

You might get this...

One of my all-time favorite movies ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

behave

banning of cluster bombs, promoting a just peace in the

preference to food crops.

increases the atmospheric load of CO2 - and leads to

in vulnerable countries as well as other undesired

Can't be done - just as you know. Just as one can't prove that smoking causes lung cancer.

This gives a convenient excuse to lay waste the planet without regard for those who will come after you.

The simplest model leads one to the conclusion that burning fossil fuels will cause global temperatures to rise. One could argue therefore that it is you should disprove it.

I just don't understand why you feel obliged to defend that nincompoop in the white house - no matter what he says. Makes no sense to me at all. Is Bush ever wrong, or like the pope, is he infallible ?

The curves I saw show a periodic, about 100K year, temperature spike, and we're right on one of the leading edges. And the CO2 seems to lag temperature, not lead it.

And there's no reason to believe that a bit of warming will be bad for the planet; evidence is to the contrary.

And we're not going to do much about it; if we don't burn the oil, the Chinese and the Indians will.

The reason I suspect the "science" is because the models are silly, there's so much money and politics involved, and the promoters of AGW have a sordid history of cooking the data.

John

Straw man. Gobs of unused embryos (created for regular old fertility reasons) are destoyed every day.

On Jun 18, 5:49 pm, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: [....]

They also shift their centers. This is the reason for the magic mixture in the cells of atomic clocks.

Cord blood's pretty good too. Ought to be saved, imho.

Cheers, James Arthur

Yes, but the longer you let them grow, the better parts they have available. So, what's the cutoff?

John

should behave

banning of cluster bombs, promoting a just peace in the

preference to food crops.

increases the atmospheric load of CO2 - and leads to

in vulnerable countries as well as other undesired

But it's accepted as proven; just ask Al.

There's correlation, and experiment. People who participate in smoking cessation programs get less lung cancer, which is certainly an experimental proof. And you can expose animals to tobacco smoke, or use skin contact of tobacco extracts, to cause cancer. And tobacco extracts are mutagenic in cell cultures. Climate isn't subject to experiment, historical data is spotty and often fudged, and most of the alarmism is based on models of doubtful accuracy.

who will come after you.

The dilemma is tthat we are impoverishing and killing people now by taking often-ineffective action against an unproven threat.

cause global temperatures to rise.

Not surprising; the simplest model of such a complex system is worthless.

Sorry, I have no need to do that. But if the Europeans want to cripple their economies with energy taxes, they have my blessings. We and our friends the Chinese will be happy to burn the oil that they don't want.

white house - no matter what he says.

W? He has converted to being a warmingist. I'm deeply disappointed in him.

John

Sure. But what's the connection to global warming?

John

John Lark>Yes, but the longer you let them grow,

Actually, the further they get into the differentiating process, the LESS valuable they become.

These are submerged in liquid nitrogen very early. Not a lot of fission going on then.

...and I hold no religious beliefs, so I have no qualms about timing. I'm sure if the donors have given them over to research, they have none either--it's only 3rd parties squawking.

white house - no matter what he says.

That proves it's real. GloBal WaRmiNg has affected his brain. q.e.d.

James Arthur

That's because those variations were driven by the the Milankovitch effect

and the change in heat input warms or cools the oceans (with a time constatn of some 800 years), which then release or absorb CO2, which in turn drives further heating or cooling.

We are now releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels, and only half of that is going to into the atmosphere - the other half is being dissolved in the oceans, which is a situation that will reverse once the oceans get warmed up (over the next 800 years or so).

You are confusing cause and effect, which doesn't demonstarte of particularly clear grasp of what mght be going on.

Check out the end-Permian global extinction

You will have to plow through quite a lot of it to see how global warming can be bad for the planent in a variety of different ways.

The Chinese and the Indians have no more interest in risking provoking a global extinction event than we do, but they are unlikely to adapt their industries to reduce the risk before we do.

And one of the reasons that you think that the models are "silly" is that you don't know enough physics to understand pressure broadening, and - rather than recognising your ignorance - you choose to think that this effect was introduced as a way of cooking the data. You may find it convenient to think that the IPCC is involved in a giant conspiracy to delude the world into believing in global warming, but the evidence you adduce is scarcely persuasive.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

is

on

r

of

e should behave

he banning of cluster bombs, promoting a just peace in the

preference to food crops.

ally, increases the atmospheric load of CO2 - and leads to

ooding in vulnerable countries as well as other undesired

Recent historical data is spotty. "Often fudged" depends on what you understand by "fudged" and your level of understanding isn't impressive.

The ice core data is rather more persuasive if you go to trouble of understanding what it represents - and you clearly haven't, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the red herring about CO2 levels lagging the temperature changes.

r those who will come after you.

In fact the "unproven threat" probably has more to do with the shortage of food that is impoverishing and killing people now than current crop of minor and ineffective gestures against global warming.

will cause global temperatures to rise.

John may think so. He's not any kind of expert on the subject.

Let alone the capacity.

Ignorance is bliss.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but in Sydney at the moment).

Thanks !

I'll see if I can find that film - not heard of it before.

Damn, I guess I'll go back to ignoring you. Facts or not, you are just too repuslive to communicate with. One poison's one's psyche being around people like you.

John