Slashdot Mirror
2016 Will Be the Hottest Year On Record, UN Says (theguardian.com)
2016 will very likely be the hottest year on record and a new high for the third year in a row, according to the UN. It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century. From an article on The Guardian:The scorching temperatures around the world, and the extreme weather they drive, mean the impacts of climate change on people are coming sooner and with more ferocity than expected, according to scientists. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, published on Monday at the global climate summit in Morocco, found the global temperature in 2016 is running 1.2C above pre-industrial levels. This is perilously close to to the 1.5C target included as an aim of the Paris climate agreement last December. The El Nino weather phenomenon helped push temperatures even higher in early 2016 but the global warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities remains the strongest factor.
The numbers are a global average. Do you understand how averages work?
Raising taxes makes it get colder out.
It's 1, in the Trump Revolutionary Calendar. It's the 15th of Trumptember.
Luckily for all we Americans, President Bernie Sanders has committed to taking action on global warming, saving the coastal states from massive floods and storms, and ending the massive subsidies for inefficient fossil fuels like coal and oil, while transitioning our workforce to higher paying jobs in solar and wind installation and maintenance, jobs that are 1000 times more than any propping up of a dying fossil fuel pipeline would be.
We dodged one when that Trump guy lost. That was close.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
For those that don't get the joke ... it is from here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
UN is a political organization. Or is that in question? It's not a scientific organization. Why should anyone care what a political organization have to say about any particular scientific question? By the very nature of politics, the organization must prioritize its political agenda over unbiased fact-finding.
Of course when it comes from a scientific group you'll just discount it because it doesn't represent all scientists, or whatever group of dissident scientists you found that deny that AGW is happening.
No matter how many scientists or organizations agree that AGW is happening you'll find a principled stance on which to discount their warnings.
I stole this Sig
Paris Agreement requires the US Senate. It is a Treaty. Everything else is nothing but "pen and a phone", which can be undone with the same.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Slashdot used to be a site once where actual nerds/geeks/science majors used to comment on science and technology news. You could learn a lot from their opinions and insights, whether they agreed with your viewpoint or not. Now every time someone posts a Global Warming related story on Slashdot, a 4 story building worth of paid-per-post anti-AGW Trolls, each likely operating 20 - 50 sock puppet accounts, seem to post crap that Global Warming "isn't happening" or "cannot caused by human activity". The mere fact that this happens on a once "free" discussion site like Slashdot leads me to believe that a) Global Warming must be getting VERY bad indeed and b) the Energy Industry is very concerned about financial liability issues arising from this. By this I mean that when AGW starts to cause early deaths, natural disasters, major economic and environmental damage, contagious disease outbreaks and similar trouble in different parts of the world, the industry wants to be able to pretend that "nobody is liable for this because AGW simply does not and cannot exist". For this you obviously need a few hundred million dollars worth of Internet Trolls who flood sites like Slashdot with "IT ISN'T US. IT ISN'T US. IT ISN'T US..." Sad. Very, very sad.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
A few years ago, about this time of year, I was told by a co-worker about how that year was forecast to be exceedingly warm. I pointed out that the year wasn't over and it is quite possible to have an unusually cold November and December to average it out. When January came around I found a news article on how the last year was merely average. When I presented this to that same hysterical co-worker merely two months later and he denied he had made any hysterical comments before.
Now we see people not even waiting until the year starts to make such predictions. Those that get all worked up over it now will be exceedingly forgetful if the predictions fail and have very very good memories if it does. Here's my tiny tiny little mention of this phenomenon. It will be interesting if someone remembers this post and revisits it a year later to see how well I did in my prediction.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
There was a lot of hot air from the elections this year.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
The record-smashing heat led to searing heatwaves across the year: a new high of 42.7C was recorded in Pretoria, South Africa in January; Mae Hong Son in Thailand saw 44.6C on 28 April; Phalodi in India reached 51.0C in May and Mitribah in Kuwait recorded 54.0C in July. Parts of Arctic Russia also saw extreme warming - 6C to 7C above average.
I've always found it fascinating that folks accuse China of generating the most greenhouse gasses and while yes by absolute number of people they probably do that's the worst interpretation of statistics ever. China has a LOT of people, if you believe in equality everyone should have the same chance at the standard of living as everyone else. The problem is that we're a very rich country, so per capita alone we generate per person more emissions than a typical Chinese citizen. We use more resources than a typical counterpart in China. (A lot of the stuff that China produces is sold to us.) and so on. It's like a billionaire asking why they can pay a tax of a 1/2 million dollars as pocket change while that would financially bankrupt the average citizen. As the leading country and the wealthiest we need to contribute a bigger share because it will technically hurt us per person less. If we don't how would we expect someone who might not be able to contribute without literally dying to give up a part of their share?
And it is a problem. Climate change is likely to hit poorer countries first, and when conditions are unsustainable, who's door do you think they'll come knocking on first? If you're the one with all the food and everyone else is starving to death, it doesn't matter if you're armed, you're in deep trouble if you don't share. And it's not like we can't share, we do actually have enough for everyone. It's just, it's hard to give up luxury.
Yes I do, but wouldn't a cooler summer and warmer winter just be nicer anyway. We can call it global equalization and it should round things off nicely with the global cooling scare of the 70s and 80s and current global warming.
Seriously. Did you read the article?
This article says that it's the hottest in 20 years.
Do you understand how patently *meaningless* that is?
We're in the middle of El Niño right now. Take that away and it's the hottest in 20 years. That's it. TWENTY.
Did you read the article? Apparently not:
2016 will very likely be the hottest year on record and a new high for the third year in a row, according to the UN. It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Wow. This is exactly why climate change is still "debated".
From the article - "The WMO’s temperature analysis combines the three main records, from the Met Office, Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and stretches back to 1880."
So, it was the hottest since 1880. This is in line with other sources that have been reporting similar things such as a continuous streak of record-breaking months for over a year now - as in they are now breaking the records set last year.
Elsewhere in the article, it did note that the el nino contributed to the early months of the year but have now dissipated and yet the heat continues.
Also, El Ninos are not a new phenomenon. They have been going on throughout the 136 years since 1880. They have always resulted in peaks, but those peaks are now always higher than before as are the troughs.
So this is a classic example of how deplorables work.
They think they are really smart because they cherry pick some words, apple some basic principles, and crow on and on about how everyone are crooks or stupid but them. And when they are pointed out that no, they really are the stupid ones, they get angry, feel persecuted, and cry that everything is rigged.
Well shit-for-brains, the article said 2017 would be likely hotter than any year prior to the last two decades, not hottest in two decades. They worded that because 2017 won't be hotter than 2016 or likely some other recent years, but will be hotter before twenty years ago.
Oh sorry I rigged your reading comprehension skills, and forced you to be blindly but proudly ignorant, my bad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-r...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I personally don't really understand
You could have just stopped typing there.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It doesn't need the US Senate. But it doesn't matter. Even if the old senate approved it the new one could repeal it. With both houses to the republicans and Trump as a president, even if it was impossible for the US to repeal the Paris agreement, the US would still fail to meet its target. And by that I mean will not even try to reach the target.
So yeah, the agreement is dead with Trump.
Oh God, just shut up about paid trolls already. No one is getting paid to post to SLASHDOT. Barely anyone reads slashdot. Certainly not people who make policy.
Just move on from Slashdot.
I gave up on fighting against the astroturfers here a few years back... wasn't worth the effort and stress anymore. I can still get good discussion about topics that matter to me at reddit -- just need to stay away from some of the subreddits there.
Every once in a while I come check on Slashdot, and remember anew why I left. The place went to shit once the sockpuppet accounts got critical mass on mod points.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Climate change zealots are retards, but "warmer than any year prior to the last two decades" doesn't mean "warmer than any year in the past two decades" like you said it does.
UN is a political organization.
The UN is the collective will of the world's nations.
Why should anyone care what a political organization have to say about any particular scientific question?
Most political organizations throughout history have felt it necessary to foster scientific discovery and invention, and to create self-regulating bodies to further the same.
You're deliberately misinterpreting the statement, every single year of this century has been hotter than every single year in recorded using modern techniques. The only exception to that is 1998, hence the 16 of 17 hottest years.
I was born and raised in the UK before moving to the US about 15 years ago.
Back then it was considered self-evident by pretty much every person in the EU that global warming was not only real, but very definitely anthropomorphic (man-made), and also inevitably going to kill us all if we didn't do something very tangible about it very quickly, which probably meant significant but necessary lifestyle compromises. Anybody that denied global warming was frankly considered a retard.
After doing significant ongoing research on the Internet I still believe that global warming is very real and anthropomorphic, and even though we don;t have absolute proof, since 99.9% of the scientific community and all indicators point that way, (and for those that don't, all have connections/funding to big oil), it just makes basic common sense to take global warming seriously and do all we can before its too late to do anything.
Fast forward to today. I now live in the US.
I'm honestly amazed by the number of Americans (including some of my best friends and apparently also including our next president) that apparently sincerely believe that global warming is not even happening and is all just made up by the scientists, or worse, just some commie plot.
With Trumps recent announcement of cutting the EPA and appointing Myron Ebell (famous climate change denier) to head the EPA transition team, I've got to ask:
Am I the fool for unduly worrying about our only means of survival, or is the majority of the rest of America the fool for being so willfully ignorant of all the scientific research and the associated danger of ultimate extinction of much if not all life on earth, for a few short-term dollars?
Out of all recorded history, find the 17 years that have been the hottest. You will find all 16 years of the 21st century among those 17 hottest years of all time.
Putting all your attention on pollution and none on man-made climate change is like worrying about too much salt in your diet while someone is lighting your hair on fire.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And once again, for the deniers and their followers, weather != climate.,
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Care to cite that, please? In general, temperatures have been trending upward for quite some time now, so I'm suspecting you're just another moron citing some denier meme you read somewhere.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The ultimate irony is that even Saudi Arabia understands that the age of fossil fuels comes to and end, and prepares accordingly But not the US extremist right wing.
If even a backwards kleptocratic monarchy, rooted in a Middle Ages value system, beats you in terms of mental flexibility, you know that you are truly fucked.
Also, let me know when next year *won't* be the hottest year on record, because that will be news. Otherwise I will just assume it's getting hotter.,
Well this is an extremely garbled take on matters.
Radiosonde are balloon borne instruments. If you add up all the "raw data" you are are adding up both tropospheric and stratospheric measurements. The thing is "Global Warming" is about heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere. This means as the lower atmosphere warms, the layers above it cool. I tracked down some of the sources and they talk about averaged data to the 100mb level (about 1/10 atmosphere). That's about 16km or twice the height of Everest.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Lighting your hair on fire will hurt you today. Too much salt may (16% probability) increase your blood pressure which may be the thing that helps kill you, and will certainly put more stress on your kidneys etc, which again may be the thing that kills you eventually. Pollution (of various types) damages populations NOW, whereas global warming is actually beneficial for the first couple of degrees for humanity as a whole, according to the IPCC even (AR5) . So your example was a mirror image of the actual situation.
Incidentally, the alarmists as ever seem keen to confuse weather and climate. We are in the peak of an El Nino. They are hot. next year you'll see cooler temperatures, and who knows, we might even see another pause. That would be funny. None of this has to with climate, which I agree, is getting a little hotter on a decade by decade, on average. Nonetheless the CO2 based models are still getting it hopelessly wrong.
Should we do more? that depends on which side of the political spectrum you fall onto.
No it doesn't. The global climate doesn't care what side of the aisle you're on.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Do you understand that CO2 in the atmosphere traps energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere? And why do you think plants have some infinite capacity to absorb it?
In fact the biggest overall absorber of CO2 to date is the oceans, and what that is doing is altering the oceans' pH. So not only do you have heating, you have overall changes in ocean chemistry.
But I get it, you're just a mindless meme machine. You know nothing, and don't want to, so you just repeat memes you've read.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Slashdot used to be a site that didn't discuss global warming every day, or any of the other political bullshit that is used to justify the seeping United Nations encroachment on national sovereignty occurring worldwide.
The reality is simple. No one believes the leftist diatribes any longer. We've been hearing for decades how global warming will kill us all, but no one notices any temperature changes really. We also know that pollution is way down (if you are old enough, you will remember when smog was a real, visible problem). Few believe in the fantasy that racists, and sexists, and homophobes are secret wreckers undermining society. Certainly, decades of claiming every Republican president is the next Hitler has turned out rather absurdly.
In fact, Slashdot of today, versus Slashdot of 2000-2004 is actually a fascinating analysis of just how far the left has declined. There was real substance in those days. Principled resistance to the Iraq war and responses to 9/11. Real resistance to globalism.
Now, it's just "wahh! bad racist! bad sexist! bad homophobe! bad climate change denier! once we are rid of you, utopia!"
Try this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has+the+number+of+hurricanes+been+increasing%3F
The first result is https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ , which is up to date.
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Stop strawmanning. No one is claiming "we were just lucky". The data is just so sparse that we can't really say for sure either way.
Physical models say that we should expect more severe storms, but fewer of them.
Don't forget the Russians, who have a vested interest in fossil fuel consumption and use paid trolls in psy-ops campaigns.
I've had interactions here with people who are very likely Russian trolls: very pro-Putin, even pro-Yankuyovych, the disgraced and deposed Ukranian president who embezzled 70 billion dollars from the treasury and built this at a cost of a hundred million dollars of laundered money.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree completely, it's sad to see that the puppets are either swamping the moderator controls or worse still, actually influencing real moderators and commentators to the point that anti-AGW appears to be the more popular stance even on slashdot.
Also, I don't believe industry is going to be able to deny AGW forever. I'd bet that industry heads are doing everything they can to kick the can down the road so that by the time the evidence is truly overwhelming they (as individuals) have collected their bonuses and are out of the picture in terms of personal prosecution so that it is their future replacements who are left standing when the music stops.
Looking at the temperatures (data, linking page), the annual average global temperature (as defined and measured by NASA) is indeed going up (I plotted the values from 2000 through 2015, and got a slope of around 0.015 C/year for a linear least-squares fit).
Regarding hurricanes, etc., I think -- and I could be wrong, I'm no climatologist -- the relevant thing is the higher moments (e.g., variance), not the mean. That is to say, given that we have such a poor understanding of climate, a prediction such as, "there will absolutely be more hurricanes going forward" is a tricky statement, but something like, "there will be a greater variance in XYZ" is (perhaps...) a safer statement. Whether (weather?) or not this is the case, I'm not sure...
Paris Agreement requires the US Senate.
More likely, it requires a majority of both houses plus a presidential signature, rather than 2/3 of the Senate. We handle most treaties by passing ordinary legislation to enact their terms, rather than using the constitutionally-defined treaty ratification process. It's usually easier.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Or:
The professional anti-AGW trolls have campaigned successfully and there are otherwise intelligent people here who honestly believe the BS they have been fed elsewhere.
We saw the same thing here recently when /. was flooded with SJW posts that pushed every tiny LGBTQRSC issue as if it were a matter of fundamental human rights.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I'll tell you what I do understand - I don't trust the UN or the politicians involved one damned bit. When this is being run by an organization so political it refuses to authorize journalists who don't subscribe to their group think, and the ultimate goal is to figure out how deep they can reach into your wallet, people ARE IN THE RIGHT to be skeptical of this. When you call people stupid and stand on your high horse, they end up voting for Trump because personally, Trump seems a far better choice than standing with these self-righteous douchebags.
The reporting organization linked above is definitely a "right wing" publication that has been critical of climate change based tax regimes. I don't agree with most of what they say, but when people won't stand up or protect their right to say it, those people have lost their principles anyway, so best case is they're not the ones to listen to in solving this problem.
Hillary and Bernie aren't hard denialists like Trump, but they are deniers nevertheless. They think AGW is really happening and must be stopped. But they think a nudge here and there is enough to avert any discomfort. Plans calling for reducing CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 and the like is really really too little too late.
This is the kind of false syllogism that results in man being defined as a bird without feathers.
Say what you will about Putin, at least he admits that Climate Change is real. He's not doing anything about it, but he knows it's real.
The hurricane machine is remarkably sensitive to many different factors. Because of this, it's a lousy predictor for global warming. Although long-term statistical effects in terms of location and intensity may eventually correlate.
On the other hand, thermometers all over the globe have been crawling up at a virtually linear pace for all those years you mentioned. I "enjoyed" some of it myself this year, in January, where I came within an inch of switching on the air conditioning when it should have been closer to freezing and in June, when triple-digit temperatures persisted day after day in a region where breaking 100 is something that used to happen one day in every 5 years or so,
Even a lot of record-breaking cold was traceable to overheating of frigid resources that would have usually been locked in for the winter somewhere further north. Kind of like how you get "snowfall" when it starts melting from the roof.
Hacker News is decent as far as civil intelligent discourse goes, albeit not much "regular news" to be found there, and the comment layout is such that it makes following a discussion thread more difficult than it need be.
Soylent News is barely even worth your time. The same clique posting and being upvoted, with more than a few of said clique posting the most bogus crap - that gets upvoted... that you can't vote down (unless you're in the regular clique) - even though everyone has 5 mod points/day.
Back before Slashdot was sold the first time, it always seemed (to me) that Slashdot almost always had the right mix of Odd News|Tech News|World News
Today - Slashdot is far too focused on Global Warming and the minutiae of American Politics.
Except that no legislation at all is required to comply with the terms of the Paris agreement.
With some other types of agreements/treaties (whatever) such as trade deals I understand some laws need to be modified. But not for a goodwill agreement saying that we should keeping the temperature increase under 2 C.
Do you really think going from 0.025% to 0.040% atmospheric CO2 is what's driving all temperature change?
A change from 0.025 to 0.04 would cause a direct impact of 2.5 Wm^-2 based on radiative transfer codes. Over the surface of the Earth that is equivalent to 1,600,000 Hiroshima bombs per day. Yes, this is certainly what is causing most (possibly more than all) of the warming over the last 60 years.
When you consider that warmer air holds more H2O (a far more potent heat trapping molecule) then you begin to see that the overall impact is even larger than the direct effect.
Did you forget that plants also die, break down, and release virtually all their CO2 right back into the atmosphere again? Their net effect is almost zero, unlike the ocean.
My bet is it's close to negligible.
I'll take that bet. Unlike you, I've actually seen the data.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Oh, yes, very definitely a record-breaking temperature drop, the like of which has never been seen before!
> The coldest year on record was also evidence of 'climate change'
What, 1910?
Buuuut, seriously folks...Yes. It is part of the evidence. The other part is the 106 years that followed 1910.
Well, you changed my mind. Thanks for letting me know that the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC these past 25 years or so is to drain people of money. I thought it had something to do with the climate, but I appreciate your informed analysis.
When you call people stupid
In all fairness he did wonder aloud who collects temperature data. There's literally an entire profession for that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You think the UN controls every major scientific organisation on the planet (all of which endorse the findings of AGW)? You think they also control every climate research organisation around the globe too? Is the UN paying for NASA's research? Do they have authority over NOAA or CRU or CSIRO, or the peer review structure of the many climate research journals as well?
What leads you to believe any political organisation has such an astonishingly far-reaching influence over the entire global science community?
Come to that, what the heck is a "climate change based tax regime"? The science has shown we're changing our climate, and that remains independently true regardless of any proposed political solutions. If you don't like a given tax regime, vote for a different solution - but don't confuse the solutions with the problem, because no amount of political criticism will make that go away.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Just look at these quotes from the article:
> "The El Niño weather phenomenon helped push temperatures even higher in early 2016 but the global warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities remains the strongest factor."
(Oh of course)
> "“As the El Niño wanes, we don’t anticipate that 2017 will be another record-breaking year,” said Dr Peter Stott at the UK’s Met Office. “But 2017 is likely to be warmer than any year prior to the last two decades"
Got that? Take away El Niño and we're the hottest in... omg .... 20 years.
On a geologic scale of millions, we're now down to forming conclusions based on a data set of ... 20.
Please send these children back to their safe spaces where they can play with Play Doh and coloring books...
You parsed that wrong. The quote was
They aren't saying "we're the hottest in... omg .... 20 years.", they are saying "we (will be) hotter (in 2017) than any year (in our records) prior to 1997".
Enigma
BEST already did that analysis:
We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 15,594 sites chosen to be distant from all MODIS-identified urban areas... the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 +/- 0.24/100yr (95% confidence).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Yes, just yes. ðYZ
Year of lies and propaganda by the GOP and the denialist finally hit the mark : people really DO think AGW is an hoax. Repeat a lie often enough and some people will start believe it. After all there is quite an incredible number of holocaist denialist, moon landing denialist and 9/11 "truther". It should not surprise you that there is now a lot of people which believe AGW is an hoax.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>paid-per-post pro-AGW Trolls
paid by whom ?
half the people on slashdot told me warming has paused for over a decade now.
Could they have been lying ? Never...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Makes sense, since reality has a well-known liberal bias and nature is actually a real thing...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Weather over the long term IS CLIMATE.
No, it most definitely is NOT. Climate is the AVERAGE of weather, not just the long-term of it. There's a huge difference. Mostly - it's infinitely easier to predict. Weather is chaotic, climate is not. Averages are far simpler than the things they are averages off.
Let's demonstrate the point with my favorite example.
This is Pete. Pete is a highschool senior. Please predict his final grades.
Whatever you're about to say - your odds of actually getting them right are about a billion to one.
Now what if I give you his transcripts, with all his past test results and academic performance notes and such. If you try predict it now your odds go up quite a bit. You may still get some wrong, and people do sometimes see big shifts before finals as kids get scared into working harder etc. but you got reasonable odds of getting them right. That's weather prediction - trying to predict something fairly chaotic based on past results.
Now what if I say to you: this is Pete's senior class. Please predict their grade distribution.
You can say with absolute certainty that it will be a normal-distribution. 25% will fail, 50% will be in the average zone and 25% will excell. You can say this because we are SO certain that ALL highschool classes ALWAYS have a normal distribution that any deviation from the normal distribution is admissible in a court of law as proof of cheating ! It's a mathematically all but guaranteed thing.
Yet it's made up of all those individual grades you couldn't predict ? How can the class grade distribution be perfectly predictable when individual grades are virtually unpredictable ?
Because averages are easier to predict than the data-points they are derived from. So much easier.
And THAT is climate science -it's predicting the average and outliers don't shift it much, and individual data-points don't affect it much -the average stays the average. To shift the average you need a consistent effect across ALL the data-points... you know like sigifnicantly increasing the volume of greenhouse gasses which makes all days (even the cold ones) warmer than they otherwise would have been.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
lol Yeah. Slashdot should do a poll on AGW. I'd guess about 75-80% of the readership here are "skeptical" of climate change, in much the same way that Kent Hovind is skeptical of evolution. Power of motivated reasoning.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Yet to change this factor for prevention of Global Warming. What other factors you suggest must be taken care for Green house Effect ??
Since Trump already is installing a climate change denier as head of the EPA and wants more smoke stack pollution to be legal we can all assume that pollution and global warming will become amplified rather than resisted. A nation that elects such trash deserves what is going to happen to it.
Sure, no legislation is required for a goodwill agreement. Legislation would be required to actually reduce emissions significantly, however.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Nope.
Still not a treaty.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/pa...
A close read of the Paris Agreement demonstrates that the U.S. delegation was entirely successful in navigating the line delineating the President’s legitimate exercise of his existing authority. If anything, the American negotiators were excessively conservative, in insisting on hortatory language when legally binding obligations were arguably entirely appropriate.
The President’s authority to enter into internationally legally binding agreements without Congressional participation or Senate advice and consent dates to the earliest years of the Republic. More than 90% of binding international agreements governed by international law are concluded by the United States without Senate advice and consent, known as “executive agreements.” As the President must act consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States, every executive agreement must find legal support in the form of one or more of the following: (1) Congressional legislation; (2) an article II, section 2 treaty; or (3) the President’s own Constitutional powers. A process for determining the legal basis for an anticipated international agreement, known as “Circular 175,” has been in place since 1955 and applied by every Republican and Democratic President since.
Many of the binding obligations in the Paris Agreement are procedural in nature, involving reporting of emissions, progress in implementation, accounting for emissions, and the like. Exchanging information with other states is a Constitutional power of the President as Chief Executive and the U.S.’s top diplomat, the “sole organ” of the Nation in dealing with foreign governments. Even in the absence of express statutory or treaty authority, the President may engage in information exchange and cooperation with foreign government in the environmental field, as demonstrated by a 1980 executive agreement with Canada on acid rain.
Moreover, the 1992 Framework Convention, an article II, section 2 treaty expressly referenced in the Paris Agreement, specifically articulates an extensive range of procedural obligations, including emissions reporting, exchange of information, technology transfer, and cooperation in implementation. The Framework Convention also lays a legal foundation for substantive matters addressed in a binding mode in the Paris Agreement, most notably financial support for developing countries’ programs of mitigation (emissions reductions) and adaptation. Domestic statutory authority, such as the Clean Air, further buttresses the U.S.’s capacity to implement these commitments. Consequently, the individual obligations in the Paris Agreement find legal support in one, two, or all three of the requisite domestic sources.
If anything, U.S. negotiators overcompensated on the side of caution in the negotiation of the Paris Agreement, even to the title of the instrument. The Convention specifically addresses the relationship between that instrument and ancillary protocols. But as long ago as 2009 governments had widely understood that the new agreement could not be called a “protocol” without complicating U.S. participation after the highly charged domestic debate over the earlier Kyoto Protocol. More to the point, the many undertakings employing the hortatory “should” can be examined one by one to determine whether they might have been supported by U.S. domestic law. This preference for a non-binding mode is part of a pattern in negotiations undertaken by the Obama Administration, which has the effect of avoiding the creation of internationally legally binding obligations altogether.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yeah I know right. All those LGBTOMGWTFBBQs claiming they couldn't learn programming because programming languages are fundamentally sexist. All those GBTs claiming rampant discrimination in tech hiring despite there being no GBT CS students.
Oh wait... that was the work of straight white male cisgendered dorks hoping to get laid by accusing GBTs along with the rest of you white male cisgendered folks who just want to work with other talented people of somehow hating cisfemales because cisfemales CAN'T FUCKING PUT ANY EFFORT INTO LEARNING ANYTHING.
Strange that GBTs just don't have that problem. Only cisfemales do. Only cisfemales feel privileged enough that they should just get tech jobs without knowing a single damned thing about how anything works and being too arrogant to give a fuck. Programmer Barbie--a perfect metaphor for the privileged cisfemale who can't fucking do basic fucking algebra.
been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.
Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
https://www.cfact.org/wp-conte...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
And on what do you base your suspicion? You have a large number of experts in fields related to climate and thermodynamics who appear to disagree with you, so please provide a citation to any study that actually backs up your claim. Otherwise, you're just another random guy on the Internet with an inflated ego and no real knowledge of the fields in question making grand claims.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I live in Montreal. 65 years ago when I was a kid, by 10 Nov we had roughly 2 feet of snow and cometant below freezing temperatures. Now our first snowfall comes after Christmas. Similarly, spring comes almost a month early. It's great where I live, as we have no hurricanes of tornadoes. But for Americans in the mid west, you have drought, unbearable summer temperatures and can only exist because you have air conditioning. And your storms inflict major damage. Can you afford home insurance? Global warming, whether man made or by nature is real. In either case you can put your head in the sand and to nothing, or you can polute less by planting trees and by going off oil. The off oil exercise will transfer wealth from the oil companies to new industries a d to individual entrepreneurs. Right Donald?
To clarify :
Plants breathe out what we breathe in. ( Convert co2 to o2 )
- In the spring and summer.
In the Fall and Winter most plants are dormant, and convert nothing. In fact, the decay process of the leaves adds co2, to the air and the soil, and gets used again ( ideally ) in the spring and fall as fertilizer.
Want to reduce temps? Plant more trees. In addition to converting co2 to o2 they provide shade, keeping local temperatures low.
Don't believe me? Go walk in a forest.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.
Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Thanks for the links. Good to know.
"The UN is the collective will of the world's nations." WTF? When did any of us get to vote for anything the UN does?
We elected a government that sent a representative to the meetings? You know, the same way you got a vote for anything your city council does?
Well, I have a PhD in math and I have to honestly tell you, I'd like to believe that the scientists involved in climate research are not influenced by 3rd-party agendas, but given the viscera of their rhetoric, I just can't imagine how that can be. I have no vested interest in their conclusion being true or being false. But if the scientific method is compromised, I can't put any kind of estimate on how true what they say happens to be. And I certainly don't think that a political organization can be unbiased when it comes to cherry picking sources of scientific conclusions. It just doesn't add up. You can't possibly claim that they don't have a political agenda. They do by the very nature of what they do. So the UN themselves cannot honestly claim that they are in a fact-finding business. They are in the business of advocacy of the agenda which suits their political bosses. That's just the job.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
We elected a government that sent a representative to the meetings?
Just because a collection of representatives of nations discussed something, does not mean that the conclusions which they made represents the will of the world's population. For example, many of the member states are dictatorships. Do their representatives represent the will of the people of those nations? I would think not. They would represent the wishes of their bosses -- the dictators. Should we assume that the dictators represent the wishes of their people to be subjugated? We get into absurd territory there.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Most political organizations throughout history have felt it necessary to foster scientific discovery and invention, and to create self-regulating bodies to further the same.
I would agree with "many". Probably not with "most". But ok. In the particular example of UN, I think that when it tries anything other than its primary mandate (being a forum for the world leader... not nations... leaders) to voice their collective opinion on the state of the world's affairs, it does not succeed. UN has never managed to stop a war. UN has never managed to resolve a humanitarian crises. UN has never managed to even bring attention to the most severe of the human rights violations in the world (it usually only singles out those violations which are committed by the prime targets of those with a voice while the most severe violations go unnoticed). UN is a place for the heads of states to voice their opinions. That is all. To suggest that this does not bias scientific conclusions which they are willing to tolerate is, at the very least, myopic.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Well, I have a PhD in math and I have to honestly tell you, I'd like to believe that the scientists involved in climate research are not influenced by 3rd-party agendas, but given the viscera of their rhetoric, I just can't imagine how that can be.
Ones who talk to the media, especially the ones with the biggest platform, sure. But that's not the entire field.
I have no vested interest in their conclusion being true or being false. But if the scientific method is compromised, I can't put any kind of estimate on how true what they say happens to be. And I certainly don't think that a political organization can be unbiased when it comes to cherry picking sources of scientific conclusions. It just doesn't add up. You can't possibly claim that they don't have a political agenda. They do by the very nature of what they do. So the UN themselves cannot honestly claim that they are in a fact-finding business. They are in the business of advocacy of the agenda which suits their political bosses. That's just the job.
You might as well say the same thing about epidemiologists studying vaccines, or biologists studying evolution. Any science that has political implications will to some extent become politicized.
But what's the alternative?
The scientific method will be more compromised than usual when applied to global warming, but it's still the best method we have.
I stole this Sig
We elected a government that sent a representative to the meetings?
Just because a collection of representatives of nations discussed something, does not mean that the conclusions which they made represents the will of the world's population. For example, many of the member states are dictatorships. Do their representatives represent the will of the people of those nations? I would think not. They would represent the wishes of their bosses -- the dictators. Should we assume that the dictators represent the wishes of their people to be subjugated? We get into absurd territory there.
I don't disagree with you, but the question wasn't "Is this the best possible system?" it was "When did any of us get to vote for anything the UN does?"
If only to the extent that the UN has contributed to a lack of direct combat between the "great powers" since the bloodbath of WW2, on balance it seems to have done more good than harm in my opinion.
I think that when it tries anything other than its primary mandate (being a forum for the world leader... not nations... leaders) to voice their collective opinion on the state of the world's affairs, it does not succeed. UN has never managed to stop a war. UN has never managed to resolve a humanitarian crises.
Wait, what??!? The UN eradicated polio.
I am just stunned that techies, who should hyave the capability of logical reasoning, really get nothing of the whoole climate change thing. /. readers that never finished it,. apparently.
So here's the grade school version, for the majority of
The WEATHER is what makews some winters really hot, and others record cold. The weather can change , but it is the severity of the weather that *Climate* change affec ts.
The CLIMATE is tha major average over 10 to 100 year timesppans. It's perfectly normal to have a deadly heat spell in the weather for months or even a few years , even if the *climate* is cooling down. And the reverse, it's evtirely possible to have record setting colds winters while the climate shows increases in global temperatures.
The statistics show, without any possibility of error, that the average temperature of ALL the planets in our solar system are increasing. The tempperature on earth is increasing faster, is all. There;s no question that all that pollution from factories, and methane from pig farms and billions of litres of cow flatulence, is making it worse. And no question that the oceans are warming, causing the methane in the sea floor to be released. So all that fresh water entering the ocean from higher global temps will stop the gulf stream, causing Europe and eastern US to go into a deep freeze, and then the albedo effect will make the rest of the planet go into a deep freeze. And THIS is data that has already been known since the late 60s!
And next, the "pole shift" idiocy. Yes, the "poles" are moving at a faster rate than ever seen before. But it's NOT going to make england suddenly nice and tropical, nor will it "flood the coasts with mile high tidal waves" , something I read over and over. The pole that's moving is the MAGNETIC pole. And it isn't moving ANYTHING except compasses and GPS settings and airline markings.
When the PHYSICAL poles do shift, you won''t be seeing a video about it by Begley . You'll probably be under a mile of water. And actually, the rapid crustal displacement theory doesn't suggest the poles themselves move, rather that the plates slide over the magma by almost 15.
Mmm.. Magma!
No, it largely just observed while others did it. It didn't fund development of polio vaccines. It didn't create logistics for distributing polio vaccines. It just collected reports on status quo and existing efforts. It is a sounding board for the heads of states. And it's not even the best platform for that. Twitter probably spreads meme's faster than UN spreads its message.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If only to the extent that the UN has contributed to a lack of direct combat between the "great powers" since the bloodbath of WW2, on balance it seems to have done more good than harm in my opinion.
Of course, it has. It's become part of a diplomatic cadre of the world. But that makes it a political institution. I wouldn't trust it to be unbiased on science. Forget fossil fuels, if it started making world-wide recommendation on nuclear plants, would you believe that it was not influenced by politics? Of course, not. Because such recommendations would be rooted in politics of nuclear proliferation or non-proliferation. So the organization would be forced to prioritize politics over science. I am certain that similarly climate research considerations that it makes are just as steeped in politics because they are tied into industrialized world's taxation policies.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Ones who talk to the media, especially the ones with the biggest platform, sure. But that's not the entire field.
No, but they are ones who have the most say into which directions of research gets funded. And without proactive funding of skeptics, the research cannot be considered to have been vetted. Most of basic science, and climate research is basic science (as opposed to applied science), is funded without profit motif. So the occasional funding which the skeptics get from fossil fuel industry is dwarfed in scope relative to the amount of funding coming from the government. Does it influence their publications? Hopefully, very little. But it inevitably influences who has the funding to continue their lines of inquiry.
You might as well say the same thing about epidemiologists studying vaccines, or biologists studying evolution. Any science that has political implications will to some extent become politicized.
But what's the alternative?
The alternative is to do what the biologists have done in the face the onslaught of "intelligent design" hypothesis... and I don't mean Richard Dawkins' approach (I don't know what it is about Brits that makes them so hostile and defensive about their research fields). I mean career academics engaging those who present alternative interpretations of data in open collegial dialogue. The biologists have done it. And the "intelligent design" has largely been pushed back as a mainstream idea. The climate researchers have not engaged their critics. They have largely been hiding behind the backs of politicians, entertainers and sometimes just plain pitch-fork-mob types. Why are they afraid of open debates? If the conclusions are solid, they should hold up in open debate. But it hasn't happened. Instead, even the legitimate skeptics have been rebranded as "deniers." This is a complete rejection of the scientific method. So, while they may be right, I don't want to dedicate my life to studying their conclusions. I want them to defend them in an open dialogue against their harshest, but most eloquent, critics. And, yes, we'll know if those critics are strawmen or patsies (a la Colmes to Sean Hannity).
Those of them who want to be the public faces of this debate should not spew vitriol even when they find themselves on the receiving end of it. Fear and intimidation is not a means to accurate discovery. Otherwise, the "97%" claim. Has no weight. In the face of fear and intimidation, near-universal compliance is expected of those who are on the inside. This is not to say that they are wrong. Only that they have not learned to behave in a manner which is convincing to those who are familiar with the scientific method of inquiry.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If only to the extent that the UN has contributed to a lack of direct combat between the "great powers" since the bloodbath of WW2, on balance it seems to have done more good than harm in my opinion.
Of course, it has. It's become part of a diplomatic cadre of the world. But that makes it a political institution. I wouldn't trust it to be unbiased on science. Forget fossil fuels, if it started making world-wide recommendation on nuclear plants, would you believe that it was not influenced by politics? Of course, not. Because such recommendations would be rooted in politics of nuclear proliferation or non-proliferation. So the organization would be forced to prioritize politics over science. I am certain that similarly climate research considerations that it makes are just as steeped in politics because they are tied into industrialized world's taxation policies.
Steeped in politics, perhaps. Doesn't mean that they are wrong though. They are also pro-vaccine.
Steeped in politics, perhaps. Doesn't mean that they are wrong though. They are also pro-vaccine.
So? I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were not a scientific institution. So their understanding of the science, on average, is the same as they of laymen. And their priorities on which scientific opinions to shine the spotlight are guided by politics before science. Sometimes the two coincide. Sometimes they are of you sync. Let's just say that they are as credible on scientific issues as a Catholic scholar would be on protestant dogma (of any one particular denomination). Even if they are knowledgeable on the subject, they would still have a viewpoint which is influenced by goals other than fact finding.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Steeped in politics, perhaps. Doesn't mean that they are wrong though. They are also pro-vaccine.
So? I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were not a scientific institution. So their understanding of the science, on average, is the same as they of laymen. And their priorities on which scientific opinions to shine the spotlight are guided by politics before science. Sometimes the two coincide. Sometimes they are of you sync. Let's just say that they are as credible on scientific issues as a Catholic scholar would be on protestant dogma (of any one particular denomination). Even if they are knowledgeable on the subject, they would still have a viewpoint which is influenced by goals other than fact finding.
But not neccessarily at odds with fact finding. The political processes benifits from finding facts - from a cynical point of view it is good to know what the facts are so you can decide what to lie about I suppose. There are a whole lot of examples of political bodies actually commissioning studies to actually find something out. Yes, it makes sense to take into account the motivation of people commissioning studies, but even if someone is biased, they can still come up with valid research.
Your example of a Catholic scholar and protestant dogma isn't very convincing in my mind, since the areas overlap so much - a Catholic scholar might have an interesting or useful point of view. Or are you saying that someone who is Catholic could not be a scholar of protestant dogma? Or that a Catholic scholar of protestant dogma would necessarily be much less "good" than an atheist scholar of protestant dogma?
Your example of a Catholic scholar and protestant dogma isn't very convincing in my mind, since the areas overlap so much - a Catholic scholar might have an interesting or useful point of view.
I am saying the opposite. I am agreeing with your point that political process is not at odds with fact finding. I am saying that it necessarily biases the announced results. Just as a Catholic scholar who would study Protestant dogma, would always need to find some point of disagreement (or stop being Catholic). The priority is to justify foregone conclusions. The facts may support them, but if they don't, then they need to "find different facts", so to speak. Which is why this:
Yes, it makes sense to take into account the motivation of people commissioning studies, but even if someone is biased, they can still come up with valid research.
doesn't hold up. The research may be accurate (in the sense that the reported observations were, in fact, observed), but you can't call it "valid" because it's impossible to tell which lines of inquiry were omitted or cut short in the investigation.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Your example of a Catholic scholar and protestant dogma isn't very convincing in my mind, since the areas overlap so much - a Catholic scholar might have an interesting or useful point of view.
I am saying the opposite. I am agreeing with your point that political process is not at odds with fact finding. I am saying that it necessarily biases the announced results. Just as a Catholic scholar who would study Protestant dogma, would always need to find some point of disagreement (or stop being Catholic). The priority is to justify foregone conclusions. The facts may support them, but if they don't, then they need to "find different facts", so to speak. Which is why this:
Yes, it makes sense to take into account the motivation of people commissioning studies, but even if someone is biased, they can still come up with valid research.
doesn't hold up. The research may be accurate (in the sense that the reported observations were, in fact, observed), but you can't call it "valid" because it's impossible to tell which lines of inquiry were omitted or cut short in the investigation.
I guess we just have a completely different world view. This idea that someone "would always need to find some point of disagreement (or stop being Catholic)" just does not match my experience - there are a whole bunch of scholars who I have seen who are fully capable of this type of study. You do not have to be a beliver of X to say "People who believe in X hold this dogma Y to be valid". Even if you believe that X and Y are complete horseshit, or alternatively if you also hold X and Y to be direct from the mouth of God, it is not impossible that you can truthfully and accurately speak about the dogma in question.
It seems to me that you have claimed that it is imposible to call anything "valid" - because it is always impossible to tell which lines of inquiry were omitted or cut short in anybody's investigation. Which seems to be inconsistent with a whole bunch of stuff that we certainly seem to have accomplished in terms of our understanding of the world. While I agree that there are challenges in evaluating "truth" when of course there are some incentives and biases that do not always pull towards that goal - I think that there are so many incentives and systems in place to combat those biases that it is possible to draw some fairly confident conclusions in most cases.
- I think that there are so many incentives and systems in place to combat those biases that it is possible to draw some fairly confident conclusions in most cases.
There are. But in some inquiries there more incentives for bias while in others there is more incentives against bias. And a purely political organization has more incentive for bias.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
- I think that there are so many incentives and systems in place to combat those biases that it is possible to draw some fairly confident conclusions in most cases.
There are. But in some inquiries there more incentives for bias while in others there is more incentives against bias. And a purely political organization has more incentive for bias.
But all of the scientists who are actually making the reports have different incentives. Again, just because a bias might exist, does not mean that the results are invalid. Tossing out a report because it might be biased is not necessarily a bad idea, but if that report agrees with virtually every other report and study in broad terms, one should perhaps consider that those reports are likely reflections of the underlying reality.
one should perhaps consider that those reports are likely reflections of the underlying reality.
The fact that "consensus" claim cannot be valid has already been shown in this thread. A small minority within any community can always hijack a political conversation to create a perception of universal "consensus" through intimidation of skeptics and control of resources (thereby starving any voices of disagreement). The tone in which the AGW hypothesis is being defended suggests that critical voices are being stifled and their research is being excluded from the funding considerations. Fear and intimidation will get you consensus on just about any issue. The fact that a political organization is, once again, joining the chorus of politically-tainted claims puts in question the integrity of research. It does not mean that the facts claimed by the research are wrong. But it does mean that the research is not scientifically validated.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
one should perhaps consider that those reports are likely reflections of the underlying reality.
The fact that "consensus" claim cannot be valid has already been shown in this thread. A small minority within any community can always hijack a political conversation to create a perception of universal "consensus" through intimidation of skeptics and control of resources (thereby starving any voices of disagreement). The tone in which the AGW hypothesis is being defended suggests that critical voices are being stifled and their research is being excluded from the funding considerations. Fear and intimidation will get you consensus on just about any issue. The fact that a political organization is, once again, joining the chorus of politically-tainted claims puts in question the integrity of research. It does not mean that the facts claimed by the research are wrong. But it does mean that the research is not scientifically validated.
While the tone of the AGW hypothesis discussion in the political space does suggest the issues of potential fear and intimidation and the like, there is little evidence that the same holds true in the worldwide accademic research community. Despite a lot of searching for evidence of that type of "cherry picking" of funding or lines of inquiry, there is very little of it that I am aware of - and the claims of this type of biases are fairly weak upon further investigation. While it MIGHT be true that the evil overlords are suppressing the true and honest scientists while the lackey sheep scientists are putting their fingers on the scales in all their research, thus resusting in a paupacy of anti-AGW evidence and an overwhelming pile of pro-AGW evidence, a more likely reason for such a divide is that the AGW hypothesis is a more accurate model of the behaviour of the climate. Sometimes the reason all the results turn out in one way is because reality is in fact that one way (and by "sometimes" I mean "usually").
Similar to the idea that bacterium Helicobacter pylori is the primary cause of stomach ulcers, the initial idea was strongly questioned, but since the idea held up to a number of further studies, it was "quickly" accepted as the best model, and within 10 years from the initial idea, antibiotic therapy became the recommended standard treatment for ulcers. Even against the ecconomic and political pressures of estabilished interests, the science settled pretty quickly. I do not see a whole lot of difference in the global climate science community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What to do about public policy is clearly not settled, but the science questions have clearly moved beyond the "Is AGW the most accurate current model?" question and more towards the "What are the finer details of particular changes that can be made to the model and/or the imputs, and how do they effect the outcomes?"
Your argument only addresses half the point. The basic science research relies almost exclusively on public funding. And if contrarian lines of inquiry are not funded, they are not extensively researched. The example from medical research does not counter this point because in medicine, unlike basic science, there is a strong profit motif to get the facts right in order to benefit from selling effective treatment in the market place.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.