That's why we have thugs in L.A. who bitch and moan about living in the ghetto, but then they never even try to get an education or even any sort of remedial training that will allow them to get a legitimate job.
I have no idea why slashdot would choose to mark this as interesting. It is a gross over-simplification of the socio-economic problems in inner cities.
Google "inner city gang cycle poverty cycle" and start reading. There are literally hundreds of factors at play, and simply saying "if they don't take advantage of (the tiny) aid we give, then F'em" is at best ignorant and at worse sociopathic.
All Bills are negotiated in their final stages behind closed doors. The only thing new here is that Sen. Dem's decided not to invite Republicans, because they certainly won't going to contribute anything.
How do you evaluate the effect of the stimulus as having not helped? While you may judge it poor because it didn't bring us back to pre-recession unemployment rates, you have to admit it is equally likely that not doing the stimulus would have resulted in a full blow depression with much worse results.
That doesn't sound like curiosity to me. More like a "survival of the fittest" result, within an environment that has changing conditions. Evolution driven programming is one suggested method of developing real AI. Let the organism (program) grow and breed (copy) with minor variations (mutations) in each generation.
Except that Oracle hasn't been limited to databases for years. They sell all sorts of enterprise software, which has, and probably will in the future, run on standard UNIX systems. Solaris being one of them. Solaris runs on the superior Ultrasparc processors or x86. I don't see it going anywhere.
I expect some merging product lines, but the losses in software will occur both on the Oracle side and the Sun side. Sun has many major enterprise software products that Oracle does not, and those are most likely not going anywhere. Sun Directory Server (ldap) for example. Support and software licensing for those products is very expensive, just like Oracle's DB. It fits perfectly into their existing $$$ licensing and support models.
There are many commercial vendor "solutions" that rely on "Solaris(or any nix) + some custom enterprise app + Oracle DB on the backend + a smattering of Sun enterprise products."
For instance, I support a commercial version of uPortal. http://www.jasig.org/uportal
It is comprised of a unix OS (solaris in our case, linux works also), Sun's ldap email calendar, and java messaging, combined with a customized version of uPortal to create a higher Ed student and employee portal. And 100's of other schools all over the world have the exact same commercial product.
Oracle would be foolish to say, just drop Sun's ldap and email for instance. It would break tons of enterprise applications that use some combination of Sun's software. And its not like we purchase Sun's ldap and then its ours. We pay a hefty yearly fee to have access to Sun engineers and newer patches. 100's of schools do. It is a sizable revenue stream.
I'm actually looking forward to the future of my Sun and Oracle products. It would be nice to deal with one vendor for licensing and support. Especially since combinations of Sun and Oracle's products are so often used together.
If their logic is sound, why was the court 5-4 and not 9-0? It is a little more complicated than an equation.
But if conservative judges will always use a set of logic that brings them to that conclusion, then I think we'll need to change the first amendment to explicitly exclude non-living "people"/corporations.
I'm curious why my original post was modded troll yet this is modded +5 when we said the same thing. Mine was minus an explanation, but it is still true.
Corporations now vote with their dollars directly, and massive ad campaigns, swift boating or otherwise, will have tremendous influence in elections, especially given that the vast majority of voters are low information voters.
Sure, it might not be a 100% match with Fascism of the past, but it is a new form of Fascism replacing heroism/glory with the glory of money making. Money is king.
Others below have pointed out in more detail why you are incorrect on a lot of things, but I'd like to correct you on "NO GAIN".
Neocons had maps drawn up of Iraqi oil long before we started mobilizing for war. Guess what Afghanistan has? The most direct route for building a huge natural gas pipeline from the north. Mark my words, the second Afghanistan is stable, that pipeline will start being built.
While some some good may come as a side benefit of our incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a secondary effect of our economic motives.
Check out "confessions of an economic hitman". Should be able to find some youtube videos of interviews or speeches by the author. Very revealing look at how business leads to war.
Exactly. The most amusing example of this is the recent left/liberal uprising, putting a president in office who supports single payer, and large majorities in the house and senate.
Yet what does the health care bill end up being? A watered down, certainly not progressive bill, that largely helps insurance companies by giving them 30 million new customers subsidized by taxes....
The left/liberal political radio hosts were baffled and angry. The left had the pres, house, and senate, and this is what we get? I was amused because I couldn't believe that any could be surprised by the results.
Until money gets out of politics, things might change "flavors" from time to time, but we will all still be eating crap.
Deep meaningful campaign finance reform is the single only thing that can truly benefit the US at this point.
You might consider it if a new network guy screws up and you find out that your lan has been accessible to the world for 2 months without your knowledge......happened to me once, early in my career.
I now add as many different layers of protection as possible. More work, more things can go wrong, but much much safer.
Most businesses that store sensitive information are well aware that it is impossible to absolutely guarantee that the data is safe. That is why the smart ones implement massive auditing.
A hospital I used to work for was like that. If a celebrity was admitted to the hospital, everyone knew that you'd get caught in seconds if you looked at their medical record.
Each keystroke, date time, screens accessed. Sure, the information might get out, but the blame isn't going to be on the system admin, or the hospital, which is 99% of what the institution cares about.
For an industry that absolutely must not let information get out, there are ways of doing it, but those methods are so extreme and expensive that they are not usually implemented anywhere except military/military contractors.
"Yes, but all of what you just said further illustrates why govt. bureaucracy is causing our medical expenses to spiral out of control"
So you'd like us to de-regulate medical devices. How about meat as well? We can go back to eating rotten meat.... Cause hey, if only a few hundred die each year, it is well worth the 50% cheaper meat....
The regulation of the industry does add cost, but that cost is directly tied to the overall health system as a whole. And the largest factor in the cost of all aspects of health care, is insurance costs. Both for physicians and patients.
There's a reason why health care costs in the USA are more than twice any other modern nation, and it certainly isn't government regulation. Feel free to read about the health care of every modern nation on Earth (except the USA) and see how their health care is the same quality or higher while at the same time much less costly.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your Fox News talking point about regulation being bad....
Except that Live searched sucked. Even the non-technical could be quickly convinced that Live was worse than Google. And once a techie convinces 1 non techie, it spreads to the non techie's office. Rinse repeat.
Now that Bing is almost as good as Google (to what degree is debatable), it is harder to convince someone to switch. Especially when non-technical people generally don't care if it is "good enough".
Monopoly + "barely good enough" will always trump "the best".
I don't think that is the right approach. Rather, I'd like to see libel and slander laws broadened to include things like scientific theories, and history itself. Big, well funded news agencies (or "think tanks) on the left and right are not held accountable for anything they say.
The only accounting is if another news agency with as much viewers challenges the assertions by the other news agency. But by that time, the damage is done, and often the viewers of one news agency are not the audience for the other.
The only way that we can start getting more truth in reporting, and accurate pictures of reality on complex issues, is to hold organizations accountable. I think anyone, a citizen, the government, a scientist, etc.., should be able to sue, say, Fox News, over their coverage of issue X, and let a jury decide if Fox reporting is libel or slander against the truth behind issue X.
I do not know what ramifications extending the definitions of libel and slander to concepts/ideas/theories would have (not a laywer), but there has to be something we can do to reign in reporting when it is blatantly false beyond all measure.
I don't care what ends up being used as long as it is open source and has improved performance over flash.
My sister needed a cheap laptop to do some work at home, so without much research, walked into a BestBuy and purchased one. Playing Hulu shows on it is very choppy. Whatever video format is used should at least play smoothly on computers sitting on store shelves, or at least scale well enough to handle a wider range of hardware.
I agree with what you said 100%. Because so many people cannot make that distinction, I think philosophy & history of religion courses should be mandatory.
Examine the belief system clinically, talk about some of the history and/or lack thereof. Show ancient religions and how they manipulated populations into slavery. Explain the reasoning behind separation of church and state from the perspectives of political leaders of the past. Examine the difference between the meaning of the words faith, belief, knowledge and fact, etc...
It probably wouldn't hurt to also have a a series of earlier courses on mythology/cultural anthropology specifically to explain the roots of our traditions, holidays, and the formation of religions over time.
You normally don't see those courses until college, but I think they should be taught way earlier, in an age appropriate way, perhaps as early as elementary school, and then increasingly detailed courses through high school.
Don't worry, once the AI used to send spam starts fighting against the AI used to defend against spam, the AI's will quickly realize that the only way to win the game, is to not play it.
There's a lot wrong with the science. Most obviously ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes, something which just dosn't agree with the theory that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. In addition there are upward "corrections" applied to monitoring stations in urban environments. Rather than downward corrections due to the Urban Heat Island effect.
This proves my point. In the past, I'd spend a couple hours googling for answers to the above concerns, listing the dozens of reputable scientists who address the above issues.
At best I'd get some links back contradicting mine, from crap science sites or skeptic sites with dubious funding. At worst, I'd get some argument about bias or even worse an argument bordering on conspiracy.
It just isn't worth the time anymore.
OK, once more. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
It explains it in simple terms, but also provides links to the actual studies that back it up. You know, real science.
Saying "less than 10%" is a little misleading when considering the impact that the middle east can have on our oil.
40% of our oil comes from OPEC, and OPEC is largely controlled by Middle Eastern countries. Without a strong presence in the Middle East (keeping it relatively stable, keeping as many of its countries favorable with us as we can, etc..), we lose a lot of influence over OPEC.
OPEC could literally destroy our economy overnight if it wanted to.
It is the same setup as the Iraq war: - all the experts agree - if you don't support it, you're a terrorist - sudden alarmism because of unrelated events (9/11 for iraq, the al gore movie for this) - exaggerated claims (mushroom clouds vs new york under water) - scaremongering - ignore evidence that shows that the conclusions were assumed
The "experts" who agreed on the Iraq war were politicians, who heavily filtered CIA reports, cherry picked data, strong-armed and lied to other politicians. That isn't even remotely similar to hundreds of scientists and thousands of published peer reviewed papers.
In terms of reacting strongly to people that deny AGW, it is because the vast majority of the 'deniers' argue with ideology, not science. That is because there is very little science for them to argue with. If someone kept trying to convince the world that all the "experts" who say the sky is blue are wrong, that it is actually red, would you waste your time on them?
In terms of the alarmism: that is mostly coming from...can you guess who....the politicians! Alarmism works to sell an issue and they know it. The "experts" aren't the alarmists. The vast majority of the scientists publish papers with dull sounding titles and make very little, if any, public comments on the ramifications of their findings.
Is there more research to be done? Sure. Are the exact impacts of AGW well understood? Not really. Is the climate warming and is man contributing? 100% certain. Do we know exactly how much man's contribution is warming the planet? Not exactly.
But we know we are having an effect. And there are hundreds of other reasons to "go green". From national security and getting off foreign oil, to reducing pollution, creating new industries and new tech jobs, getting ahead of Europe and selling green tech to them instead of buying it, diversifying our power sources making our grid less susceptible to failure, etc, etc etc..
"Going green" can be done without destroying the economy, and it might actually be a great way to restore a lot of America's lost manufacturing base.
Any way, I got a bit off topic hehe. I just found you comparing Iraq to AGW to be way off on lots of levels.
While the more "news worthy" research probably does have a better chance of getting funding, if you scan the titles of most of the climate papers, they are extremely boring:)
There are a few, maybe a dozen, climate scientists that make some sensationalist claims, but most of the sensationalism comes from people compiling and interpreting (or re-interpreting) what those very boring research papers are saying.
I guess my original point about grants, was that if anything, anti-AGW research should be flooding the market given the money available to those folks from business.
If a climate researcher just wanted to ensure that he/she had grant money, at the cost of truth, being an anti-AGW researcher would be way more lucrative.
The reason that there isn't a compelling competing body of anti-AGW research, isn't due to any grant/funding bias or sensationalism. Scientists know what the climate reality is, not perfectly, but well enough to know that AGW is the most correct overall view.
Thousands of experts would have assured you that pholgiston and the ether existed..
And things like 'flat earth' and other now disproved theories, were prevalent during a time before the Scientific Method had been put in place and refined.
That's why we have things like planes, vaccines, and tornado tracking/warning systems. Science works.
Could the climate scientists, all of them, be wrong? Well, possibly. And I'd encourage more research, and more qualified researchers double checking each other's work.
But in the meantime, to selectively ignore this area of science while trusting all the other areas, speaks volumes about bias in the coverage and misinformation that the public is being fed.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why we have thugs in L.A. who bitch and moan about living in the ghetto, but then they never even try to get an education or even any sort of remedial training that will allow them to get a legitimate job.
I have no idea why slashdot would choose to mark this as interesting. It is a gross over-simplification of the socio-economic problems in inner cities.
Google "inner city gang cycle poverty cycle" and start reading. There are literally hundreds of factors at play, and simply saying "if they don't take advantage of (the tiny) aid we give, then F'em" is at best ignorant and at worse sociopathic.
All Bills are negotiated in their final stages behind closed doors. The only thing new here is that Sen. Dem's decided not to invite Republicans, because they certainly won't going to contribute anything.
How do you evaluate the effect of the stimulus as having not helped? While you may judge it poor because it didn't bring us back to pre-recession unemployment rates, you have to admit it is equally likely that not doing the stimulus would have resulted in a full blow depression with much worse results.
All your talking points are 100% RepubliFox fud.
That doesn't sound like curiosity to me. More like a "survival of the fittest" result, within an environment that has changing conditions. Evolution driven programming is one suggested method of developing real AI. Let the organism (program) grow and breed (copy) with minor variations (mutations) in each generation.
Except that Oracle hasn't been limited to databases for years. They sell all sorts of enterprise software, which has, and probably will in the future, run on standard UNIX systems. Solaris being one of them. Solaris runs on the superior Ultrasparc processors or x86. I don't see it going anywhere.
I expect some merging product lines, but the losses in software will occur both on the Oracle side and the Sun side. Sun has many major enterprise software products that Oracle does not, and those are most likely not going anywhere. Sun Directory Server (ldap) for example. Support and software licensing for those products is very expensive, just like Oracle's DB. It fits perfectly into their existing $$$ licensing and support models.
There are many commercial vendor "solutions" that rely on "Solaris(or any nix) + some custom enterprise app + Oracle DB on the backend + a smattering of Sun enterprise products."
For instance, I support a commercial version of uPortal. http://www.jasig.org/uportal
It is comprised of a unix OS (solaris in our case, linux works also), Sun's ldap email calendar, and java messaging, combined with a customized version of uPortal to create a higher Ed student and employee portal. And 100's of other schools all over the world have the exact same commercial product.
Oracle would be foolish to say, just drop Sun's ldap and email for instance. It would break tons of enterprise applications that use some combination of Sun's software. And its not like we purchase Sun's ldap and then its ours. We pay a hefty yearly fee to have access to Sun engineers and newer patches. 100's of schools do. It is a sizable revenue stream.
I'm actually looking forward to the future of my Sun and Oracle products. It would be nice to deal with one vendor for licensing and support. Especially since combinations of Sun and Oracle's products are so often used together.
If their logic is sound, why was the court 5-4 and not 9-0? It is a little more complicated than an equation.
But if conservative judges will always use a set of logic that brings them to that conclusion, then I think we'll need to change the first amendment to explicitly exclude non-living "people"/corporations.
I love how I got marked troll for saying the same thing hehe.
I'm curious why my original post was modded troll yet this is modded +5 when we said the same thing. Mine was minus an explanation, but it is still true.
Corporations now vote with their dollars directly, and massive ad campaigns, swift boating or otherwise, will have tremendous influence in elections, especially given that the vast majority of voters are low information voters.
Sure, it might not be a 100% match with Fascism of the past, but it is a new form of Fascism replacing heroism/glory with the glory of money making. Money is king.
The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.
Others below have pointed out in more detail why you are incorrect on a lot of things, but I'd like to correct you on "NO GAIN".
Neocons had maps drawn up of Iraqi oil long before we started mobilizing for war.
Guess what Afghanistan has? The most direct route for building a huge natural gas pipeline from the north.
Mark my words, the second Afghanistan is stable, that pipeline will start being built.
While some some good may come as a side benefit of our incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a secondary effect of our economic motives.
Check out "confessions of an economic hitman". Should be able to find some youtube videos of interviews or speeches by the author. Very revealing look at how business leads to war.
Exactly. The most amusing example of this is the recent left/liberal uprising, putting a president in office who supports single payer, and large majorities in the house and senate.
Yet what does the health care bill end up being? A watered down, certainly not progressive bill, that largely helps insurance companies by giving them 30 million new customers subsidized by taxes....
The left/liberal political radio hosts were baffled and angry. The left had the pres, house, and senate, and this is what we get? I was amused because I couldn't believe that any could be surprised by the results.
Until money gets out of politics, things might change "flavors" from time to time, but we will all still be eating crap.
Deep meaningful campaign finance reform is the single only thing that can truly benefit the US at this point.
You might consider it if a new network guy screws up and you find out that your lan has been accessible to the world for 2 months without your knowledge......happened to me once, early in my career.
I now add as many different layers of protection as possible. More work, more things can go wrong, but much much safer.
Most businesses that store sensitive information are well aware that it is impossible to absolutely guarantee that the data is safe. That is why the smart ones implement massive auditing.
A hospital I used to work for was like that. If a celebrity was admitted to the hospital, everyone knew that you'd get caught in seconds if you looked at their medical record.
Each keystroke, date time, screens accessed. Sure, the information might get out, but the blame isn't going to be on the system admin, or the hospital, which is 99% of what the institution cares about.
For an industry that absolutely must not let information get out, there are ways of doing it, but those methods are so extreme and expensive that they are not usually implemented anywhere except military/military contractors.
Hey, stop confusing the right wing fox watchers with facts. It hurts their brains.
"Yes, but all of what you just said further illustrates why govt. bureaucracy is causing our medical expenses to spiral out of control"
So you'd like us to de-regulate medical devices. How about meat as well? We can go back to eating rotten meat.... Cause hey, if only a few hundred die each year, it is well worth the 50% cheaper meat....
The regulation of the industry does add cost, but that cost is directly tied to the overall health system as a whole. And the largest factor in the cost of all aspects of health care, is insurance costs. Both for physicians and patients.
There's a reason why health care costs in the USA are more than twice any other modern nation, and it certainly isn't government regulation. Feel free to read about the health care of every modern nation on Earth (except the USA) and see how their health care is the same quality or higher while at the same time much less costly.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your Fox News talking point about regulation being bad....
Except that Live searched sucked. Even the non-technical could be quickly convinced that Live was worse than Google. And once a techie convinces 1 non techie, it spreads to the non techie's office. Rinse repeat.
Now that Bing is almost as good as Google (to what degree is debatable), it is harder to convince someone to switch. Especially when non-technical people generally don't care if it is "good enough".
Monopoly + "barely good enough" will always trump "the best".
"Banning websites which post right wing rumors"
I don't think that is the right approach. Rather, I'd like to see libel and slander laws broadened to include things like scientific theories, and history itself. Big, well funded news agencies (or "think tanks) on the left and right are not held accountable for anything they say.
The only accounting is if another news agency with as much viewers challenges the assertions by the other news agency. But by that time, the damage is done, and often the viewers of one news agency are not the audience for the other.
The only way that we can start getting more truth in reporting, and accurate pictures of reality on complex issues, is to hold organizations accountable. I think anyone, a citizen, the government, a scientist, etc.., should be able to sue, say, Fox News, over their coverage of issue X, and let a jury decide if Fox reporting is libel or slander against the truth behind issue X.
I do not know what ramifications extending the definitions of libel and slander to concepts/ideas/theories would have (not a laywer), but there has to be something we can do to reign in reporting when it is blatantly false beyond all measure.
I don't care what ends up being used as long as it is open source and has improved performance over flash.
My sister needed a cheap laptop to do some work at home, so without much research, walked into a BestBuy and purchased one. Playing Hulu shows on it is very choppy. Whatever video format is used should at least play smoothly on computers sitting on store shelves, or at least scale well enough to handle a wider range of hardware.
Taxes have been has high as 50-60% in the past on the wealthy. We seemed to do just fine.
But why should you not teach religion in schools?
For the same reason you don't teach astrology.
Belief systems are knowledge are they not?
Almost by definition, they are not.
I agree with what you said 100%. Because so many people cannot make that distinction, I think philosophy & history of religion courses should be mandatory.
Examine the belief system clinically, talk about some of the history and/or lack thereof. Show ancient religions and how they manipulated populations into slavery. Explain the reasoning behind separation of church and state from the perspectives of political leaders of the past. Examine the difference between the meaning of the words faith, belief, knowledge and fact, etc...
It probably wouldn't hurt to also have a a series of earlier courses on mythology/cultural anthropology specifically to explain the roots of our traditions, holidays, and the formation of religions over time.
You normally don't see those courses until college, but I think they should be taught way earlier, in an age appropriate way, perhaps as early as elementary school, and then increasingly detailed courses through high school.
I
Don't worry, once the AI used to send spam starts fighting against the AI used to defend against spam, the AI's will quickly realize that the only way to win the game, is to not play it.
There's a lot wrong with the science. Most obviously ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes, something which just dosn't agree with the theory that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. In addition there are upward "corrections" applied to monitoring stations in urban environments. Rather than downward corrections due to the Urban Heat Island effect.
This proves my point. In the past, I'd spend a couple hours googling for answers to the above concerns, listing the dozens of reputable scientists who address the above issues.
At best I'd get some links back contradicting mine, from crap science sites or skeptic sites with dubious funding. At worst, I'd get some argument about bias or even worse an argument bordering on conspiracy.
It just isn't worth the time anymore.
OK, once more.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
It explains it in simple terms, but also provides links to the actual studies that back it up. You know, real science.
Saying "less than 10%" is a little misleading when considering the impact that the middle east can have on our oil.
40% of our oil comes from OPEC, and OPEC is largely controlled by Middle Eastern countries. Without a strong presence in the Middle East (keeping it relatively stable, keeping as many of its countries favorable with us as we can, etc..), we lose a lot of influence over OPEC.
OPEC could literally destroy our economy overnight if it wanted to.
It is the same setup as the Iraq war:
- all the experts agree
- if you don't support it, you're a terrorist
- sudden alarmism because of unrelated events (9/11 for iraq, the al gore movie for this)
- exaggerated claims (mushroom clouds vs new york under water)
- scaremongering
- ignore evidence that shows that the conclusions were assumed
The "experts" who agreed on the Iraq war were politicians, who heavily filtered CIA reports, cherry picked data, strong-armed and lied to other politicians. That isn't even remotely similar to hundreds of scientists and thousands of published peer reviewed papers.
In terms of reacting strongly to people that deny AGW, it is because the vast majority of the 'deniers' argue with ideology, not science. That is because there is very little science for them to argue with. If someone kept trying to convince the world that all the "experts" who say the sky is blue are wrong, that it is actually red, would you waste your time on them?
In terms of the alarmism: that is mostly coming from...can you guess who....the politicians! Alarmism works to sell an issue and they know it. The "experts" aren't the alarmists. The vast majority of the scientists publish papers with dull sounding titles and make very little, if any, public comments on the ramifications of their findings.
Is there more research to be done? Sure.
Are the exact impacts of AGW well understood? Not really.
Is the climate warming and is man contributing? 100% certain.
Do we know exactly how much man's contribution is warming the planet? Not exactly.
But we know we are having an effect. And there are hundreds of other reasons to "go green". From national security and getting off foreign oil, to reducing pollution, creating new industries and new tech jobs, getting ahead of Europe and selling green tech to them instead of buying it, diversifying our power sources making our grid less susceptible to failure, etc, etc etc..
"Going green" can be done without destroying the economy, and it might actually be a great way to restore a lot of America's lost manufacturing base.
Any way, I got a bit off topic hehe. I just found you comparing Iraq to AGW to be way off on lots of levels.
While the more "news worthy" research probably does have a better chance of getting funding, if you scan the titles of most of the climate papers, they are extremely boring:)
There are a few, maybe a dozen, climate scientists that make some sensationalist claims, but most of the sensationalism comes from people compiling and interpreting (or re-interpreting) what those very boring research papers are saying.
I guess my original point about grants, was that if anything, anti-AGW research should be flooding the market given the money available to those folks from business.
If a climate researcher just wanted to ensure that he/she had grant money, at the cost of truth, being an anti-AGW researcher would be way more lucrative.
The reason that there isn't a compelling competing body of anti-AGW research, isn't due to any grant/funding bias or sensationalism. Scientists know what the climate reality is, not perfectly, but well enough to know that AGW is the most correct overall view.
Thousands of experts would have assured you that pholgiston and the ether existed. .
And things like 'flat earth' and other now disproved theories, were prevalent during a time before the Scientific Method had been put in place and refined.
That's why we have things like planes, vaccines, and tornado tracking/warning systems. Science works.
Could the climate scientists, all of them, be wrong? Well, possibly. And I'd encourage more research, and more qualified researchers double checking each other's work.
But in the meantime, to selectively ignore this area of science while trusting all the other areas, speaks volumes about bias in the coverage and misinformation that the public is being fed.