angech | August 30, 2017 at 2:33 am |
“There is a difference between MOVING PEOPLE
and SUBSIDIZING them to continue stupid behavior.”
“I will explain this slowly. I have no issue with people living in flood plains AS LONG AS they,not me, pay the FULL unsubsidized price of living there and fixing the problems associated with living there.
That means insurance reform which every right thinking libertarian understands. Dont make people in kansas subsidize the kooks to choose
to live on fault lines. You wanna live on a fault line? fine. pay a true unsubsidized insurance cost to do so. No federal bailouts.”
Blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.
People are not kooks because their great grandparents traveled to Kansas and settled there.
The choice they have, giving up family and friends and property and family ties to move some where else “Safe” is easy to spout when you do not live there.
If they have an earthquake, or people in Houston have a flood you can choose not to help and absolve yourself by saying it is all their own fault.
Impeccable line of heartless logic.
I will explain re smokers so you get it.
People did not choose to smoke.
Tobacco is addictive.
People made cigarettes and sold them society promoted it.
Now I know doctors who refuse to treat people who smoke and people who are overweight.
A blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.
Smokers are in my family and in your family.
Smokers are my friends [and enemies].
Smokers are part of the fabric [for richer or poorer] of our society.
Smokers and overweight people share a higher burden of disease.
A civilized doctor, a civilized society, picks up the pieces. We help them because they need help whether they caused their problems or not.
I do not expect you to change your attitude.
I have lots of friends who are vehemently anti-smoking and believe as you do. They are wrong as well.
Looking in the mirror.
” best to get ahead of the game than to be stuck losing an eyeballs game to intellectually inferiors– ie wuwt”
Games theory is an integral part of science. At least one, probably a lot more Nobel prizes, real ones, [not sorry for the snark].
Games have rules, even ones without rules, Climateball.
I was most interested in the part.
“A consensus is not manufactured, it emerges if all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture. It is true that overturning a consensus can be very difficult, but this is often because doing so requires not only illustrating the strength of the evidence supporting the new position, but also why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted. Overturning a consensus is not meant to be easy. ”
Turns out that consensus can be wrong?
Who could have guessed.
Perhaps the little line escapes the oversight.
“all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture.”
Herein the problem for people like Steven, and others here, who see one bit of excellent proof, CO2 increase in atmosphere gives a warming atmosphere, while ignoring at least two other facts.
The earth is not a straight test tube with only air and CO2, there are confounding features.
Life is resilient and adaptable.
Ignoring the fact that not all the various lines of evidence support warming to the degree that the textbooks properly say should occur.
Strangely, from this side of the mirror, every argument used suffers from the same flaws in reverse.
“why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted”
This is wrong. A lot of evidence there, most pointing in one direction.
Only hope for Skeptics is that it has been misinterpreted. History does give a couple of well known examples.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 15, 2017 at 4:11 am
The answer to the first part of the problem seems to be that a natural cloud of space dust cannot and must not, by the laws of physics aggregate into a disc.
Natural would be a cloud of dust existing as it always has just drifting along in space stationary as Ragnar says.
Of course this is itself physically difficult [impossible to conceive].
The answer lies in two aspects.
One billions of years ago when the very large original and their second and third, tenth offspring exploded scattering the dust outwards not to return. Escape velocity.
Combined with an expanding universe? theoretically each particle would be most unlikely to congeal with other particles.
Gravity would however tend to draw some adjacent particles into files and rows of outward extending streaks so one can imagine over time streaks/streams of related matter traveling semi adjacent to each other.
Time is the factor here.
The universe was a lot smaller and these particles were impeded by the other stars and exploded star materials ending up in swirls around the other stars til they too exploded and clumping together with the other debris and interacting with the debris from the newer exploding stars.
These of course included heavy metal particles with more gravitational attraction.
It is not the gravitational attraction that causes the formation of discs and protostars. It is the left over differential movements of the particles that have come from different stars in different directions being forced into a mass that is assumed to all have the same angular momentum but doesn’t.
The bits that travel in opposite directions collide lose velocity and become subject to the effect of their gravity and start pulling everything in that was previously happily moving in unison with its own debris pattern [and not coming together]
The problem is somewhat similar to the discussions on Carbonate build up in the crust of the earth. On massive time scales we have a crust impregnated with billions of tons of inorganic matter that was once organic, now unrecognizable.
The universe is at least 4 1/2 times older than the earth with all that extra time to fashion the stars we see today.
Thanks for the interesting post. I hope my contribution is not perceived as token.