I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care.
I haven't seen a man swallow a pinecone either. Not sure that that creates a compelling reason for anyone to take up pinecone swallowing.
From my perspective, I'd rather we went exploring - sent a robotic sub to the oceans of titan, or drilling into icy crust of europa. If I want to see a glorified meat van, I'd bling up the butchers ute.
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
The other option is to not send redundant bags of meat into space. These days it makes just as much sense to send a pineapple or a meerkat as it does to send humans: none of the features of a human are particularly useful in the vacuum of space or near vacuum on Mars. Better to send a robot or bunch of robots specifically designed to achieve whatever the particular aims we have for that mission.
You are (name)calling completely different (DIFFERENT - do you know what that work fucking means) people "denialist" and expecting them to have the same opinion. Different people have different opinions.
Is denialism (a) factual or (b) subjective opinion with no link to reality?
So: which is it? Is the temperature rising, or isn't it? If it is rising, what is causing it to rise, if not CO2 and other GHGs? If it is not rising, why does the data say otherwise?
The nice thing about being a skeptic is that I don't have to explain or prove anything.
You aren't a sceptic. If you don't prove that your theory - be it either (a) that the temperature is not rising despite what the instruments say or (b) the temperature has risen for reasons that can't be observed - if you don't prove your theory, whichever it is, then we have no reason to believe it.
Yes there are those who claim genuine conspiracies, but by far the vast majority of people who, say, believe climate change is not man-made nor catastrophic think it is incorrect science.
Science is generally pretty self correcting, if you make a mistake someone will eventually find out. Climate Change was discovered over 150 years ago: it's kinda hard to believe that nobody has checked that work in all that time. If you were a climate contrarian, wouldn't the first thing you do be to check experimentally to see if CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
If the accepted science is actually wrong, then the only way that could be not generally known would be if there was a massive, enduring conspiracy suppressing the truth.
we need the resources that are abundant and the space from a terraformed planet if we are to eventually survive being overpopulated and the ever dwindling resources on this planet.
Mars is too far away for it's resources to make any difference to a shortage on Earth and Mars is too small to make a dent in the Earth's population - even if fully populated it could house a fraction of what the Earth can house. Plus it's cold and airless and bombarded with deadly radiation, even 100 000 years would not be sufficient to terraform it and without terraforming nobody would want to live there.
It's pretty simple: one denialist tells me the temperature hasn't risen - another tells me that it has but through some means that they can't explain.
These versions of the hypothesis are completely contradictory. The evidence (which oddly, denialists don't seem to want to share) can only point to one of these being true. So: which is it? Is the temperature rising, or isn't it? If it is rising, what is causing it to rise, if not CO2 and other GHGs? If it is not rising, why does the data say otherwise?
What's the objective benefit of Spirit and Opportunity?
We're interested in the Solar System, and so we send probes into it. I see what you are getting at though, that this activity doesn't necessarily qualify as 'objectively beneficial' and that's a good point. But if we agree that learning more about the Solar System and indeed the world around us is an 'agreed benefit' then how does sending humans to Mars actually benefit that outcome?
What outcome does sending humans serve that sending robots doesn't do better?
What if we had said: "Let's not build [the giant machine called] CERN , because humans can do a better job of energising atoms to ridiculous levels and seeing what happens" would we have learned as much as we did? Is that idea actually any more ridiculous than sending a human to space instead of a 10 or 100 robots?
Pushing our science and knowledge is the way we create capabilities and very often the tangible benefit is the culmination of a long series of not so obviously beneficial advances.
But if we make those advances (e.g. in AI for self navigation, in solar cell technology, in material science) and then ignore those advances for a mere ideological reason "we want humans to go space" because we can't cope with the idea that robots do a better job in space than humans do then the material benefit of those discoveries is greatly lessened.
We know that doing a manned Mars mission requires solving many technological challenges, that I would argue by themselves have value. For example, maybe we have to find a way to fix radiation damage to the cells, that could have far-reaching applications.
If we are not motivated by the millions (billions?) of people who suffer radiation damage and cell degeneration NOW, why would we be motivated for the benefit of the 5 or 6 people who go to Mars? Maybe, what we ought to do is: (a) send a robot with a tissue sample to Mars, if there is something special about the deadly radiation there that we wouldn't see in a lab (b) spend the rest on finding a cure for cancer.
There are huge amounts of untapped energy and material resources out there.
In the pilbara region of Western Australia the mining operation is almost completely automated. Trains run for 1000 km - no driver. Trucks drive around the mines by themselves.
If we don't need humans in the pilbara to tap resources, we don't need them in space either - space is much further away than Western Australia (strange as that may seem).
But perhaps the question to be asked is not "could it?" but "should it?"
Unless someone can come forward and provide a compelling reason why we should send humans (of all things) to Mars, any such venture is doomed to failure in the long term. By compelling, I mean, demonstrating some objective benefit that we mostly agree on. The reasons givens o far fall short of that benchmark:
1. "Because we can". We "can" also eat a bag of pinecones. Doesn't make it a good idea.
2. "We like to explore" - now we can use robots to explore for us. Why dick around on a dead rock when there are interesting places for us to go (via our robot allies)?
3. "We need a backup" - but humans aren't pigs or cows. You can't breed a herd to replace your old herd from a remnant number of bulls and heifers. Humans are culture and belief and outlook and songs and poetry. Whose culture will you choose to preserve on Mars? Will there be people there to carry on the lifestyle of the Bantu? The Zulu? The Fijians? How will you structure that society - according to the cultural norms of the Motswana? The Brahman caste system? Will you adopt Sharia Law?
4. "It's exciting" Exciting for a few. But in general, people are going about their lives and never thinking about Mars and landing on Mars. Look around. There is just not enough public interest.
You were told unambiguously by the AC that temperature (generally) is either increasing or decreasing. AC seemed accepting that we appear to be increasing. You ignored this, failed at reading comprehension, and elected to continue arguments with strawmen not present to defend themselves.
It's not me that failed reading comprehension. Read it again.
Looks like your mate who runs that blog has updated it since you read it, to the effect that he no longer claims that NOAA thinks that 1997 was warmer than 2015 - and grudgingly admits that he misread the material. Apparently, this is NOAA's fault for not making the material clear enough for a numpty to understand.
Your logic breaks down as soon as there are two models to choose from. If one does have this 50/50 property then the other, which is predicting a different future temperature window, cannot also have this 50/50 property.
Yes and no. The models individually will track less or more than the actual observation. If the results are combined , then the consolidated line will track less more than the actual temperature. Neither case implies the models themselves aren't doing their job.
More like, because I don't drink, not everybody drinks, an even larger percentage never drinks to excess.
Presumably 'not everybody' shoots their wife either - I haven't shot mine. But through the magic of logic, this doesn't actually mean that nobody shoots their wife in a drunken rage.
Guess this didn't happen then [nydailynews.com]. or this. [fox10phoenix.com] or this. [timesfreepress.com] or this. [koco.com] or this. [cbslocal.com] Aren't the things that don't happen amazing?
It's more that the firearms aren't required. Most of those attacks would still have happened, and some would still have been fatal. Thus, it's probably better to address the domestic violence, you know?
Why are you shifting the goalposts? Are you having trouble justifying your original assertion?
In any case, I'm sure you are aware that domestic violence is more common than home invasion. The gun toting resident is a far greater danger in the house than the theoretical home invader: it remains to be seen which poses the greater danger when a home invasion is actually in progress - certainly worth considering.
In any case:
Most of those attacks would still have happened, and some would still have been fatal.
Aaaaaand some of them, let's be honest, many of them would not have happened, and very few of them would have resulted in deaths. Because if fists were as effective as guns the Marine Corp would take the field with knuckle dusters. Seems odd that you aren't interested in saving lives.
Nope. It's 'ok' to kill violent people who break into your home while you're there. The meth just shows an increased tendency to said violence.
Interesting. You come across as violent - pathologically so, I suspect. Would it be justified to kill you, do you think?
And also, he's constantly chasing a long legged bird with the aim of capturing/killing said bird with products he has purchased from ACME corporation. And you forgot to mention he is a coyote.
Not actually a counter-argument.
Your view of home invaders is cartoonish and as unbelievable as Wile E Coyote. And you are being serious.
As for the rest of your stuff, it's so amazing that you were able to find so many stories. You only had a few duplicates.
There was quite a long list of dead kids - it went on and on. To be honest, I got tired of citing.
and congratulations on finding a non-example of taking a firearm from somebody's hands. The criminal in that took it from the holster. That's how about 3 police officers lose their lives each year.
Well that makes all the difference then. I guess we are magically safe from your paranoid stupidity. Because the fact that the criminal took your gun doesn't matter. Only the way you were carrying it matters.
Sure. We don't need to worry about the dead kids. Just pile em up out back.
False. We worry about the dead kids. It's just that we think the solution's different.
It's you killing the kids. You ARE the problem, not the solution.
Granted, this is from the same group who has had a hard time naming the issue, going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming
Anthropomorphic?
If you don't even know what it's called, why should we believe you when you say that the science is wrong?
I'll wager that the list of AOGCM models described here will accurately predict the temperature incline within their error bars, out to 2030.
Measure date: 23 January 2030
Terms: 10:1 (i.e. you'll give me 10:1 odds), $50 (US) down.
Caveats: Some agreed variation on the predicted concentration of CO2 over the testing period will render the wager null, since this a human variation, not a model one.
- I then stab my spouse to death because the gun wouldn't fire. outcome worse than 'bad'.
So it's ok to kill people while on methamphetamine, because people high on coke also kill people sometimes?
Well argued.
Scenario 2: (a) the burglar isn't a burglar, he's a home invader.
And also, he's constantly chasing a long legged bird with the aim of capturing/killing said bird with products he has purchased from ACME corporation. And you forgot to mention he is a coyote.
(c) try finding this actually happening. Removing a firearm from an armed person's hands only really happens in the movies. It's too easy to just shoot somebody trying to snatch your weapon.
(d) bad conservative/libertarian police: So what? It's the intruder's fault for breaking in. If he doesn't want to risk getting shot, he shouldn't be breaking in.
Sure. We don't need to worry about the dead kids. Just pile em up out back.
Dunno why this is so surprising, it makes sense really. Most arguments against smart guns that I've heard boil down to the increased risk that the smart gun won't go off because it doesn't recognise you or because the battery is flat or some such. Even before balancing those cases out with possibility that your gun gets stolen or you lose it because you put it down and forget or leave it your suitcase for some reason and then lend the suitcase to your kids to go on camp with or whatever, I calculate that on average you are better off if the gun doesn't fire.
Scenario one: you come home drunk after a bad day, and in a drunken rage, your thoughts turn to violence and you attack your spouse: Case (a) The spouse grabs the gun and confronts you: Case (b) You shoot your spouse: outcome bad. In both cases, it's a better outcome if the gun doesn't fire.
Scenario two (a favored one for gun owners): You hear someone breaking into your house and stumble out of your bed: Case (a) The burglar, who has armed themselves and is armed, highly strung and anxious (because of stupid befuddled and armed home owners) shoots you. After all, you were still half asleep and they were alert and ready. Case (b) You shoot the intruder, but it turns out to be your teenage daughter sneaking in. Case (c) The intruder snatches the gun off you. Case (d) You shoot the intruder who is unarmed and would otherwise have run away at the first sign of trouble. Case (e) The intruder is really intent on doing you harm and you shoot them.
In cases a-d, the gun not going off is a better outcome.
In case (e) it's better if the gun goes off. But how likely is (e)? Do burglars generally decide to murder someone for no reason? Are burglars more likely to murder someone than the average joe?
So mathematically, it looks like (on average) it's better if the gun doesn't go off.
Whatever the reason, if they'd wagered on more sane "you're models show too much warming" terms, they could have made some good money.
Except nobody would take that bet, because mathematically, it is always 50/50. A model will always predict higher or lower than the actual outcome. It will be one or the other, and actually it doesn't matter which, as long as the model correctly predicts within a useful percentile. Also the bet is meaningless: you could make a wager on something meaningful ("the average temperature between 2010 and 2020 will be within the error bands of model x") - in which case, for any GCM model (or later) the contrarians are on track to lose (again).
Slashdot Mirror
Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration.
Not seeing any evidence that that is true,
I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care.
I haven't seen a man swallow a pinecone either. Not sure that that creates a compelling reason for anyone to take up pinecone swallowing. From my perspective, I'd rather we went exploring - sent a robotic sub to the oceans of titan, or drilling into icy crust of europa. If I want to see a glorified meat van, I'd bling up the butchers ute.
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Now robots take those leaps on our behalf.
Won't somebody think of the alien overlords?!?
The other option is to not send redundant bags of meat into space. These days it makes just as much sense to send a pineapple or a meerkat as it does to send humans: none of the features of a human are particularly useful in the vacuum of space or near vacuum on Mars. Better to send a robot or bunch of robots specifically designed to achieve whatever the particular aims we have for that mission.
You are (name)calling completely different (DIFFERENT - do you know what that work fucking means) people "denialist" and expecting them to have the same opinion. Different people have different opinions.
Is denialism (a) factual or (b) subjective opinion with no link to reality?
So: which is it? Is the temperature rising, or isn't it? If it is rising, what is causing it to rise, if not CO2 and other GHGs? If it is not rising, why does the data say otherwise?
The nice thing about being a skeptic is that I don't have to explain or prove anything.
You aren't a sceptic. If you don't prove that your theory - be it either (a) that the temperature is not rising despite what the instruments say or (b) the temperature has risen for reasons that can't be observed - if you don't prove your theory, whichever it is, then we have no reason to believe it.
Yes there are those who claim genuine conspiracies, but by far the vast majority of people who, say, believe climate change is not man-made nor catastrophic think it is incorrect science.
Science is generally pretty self correcting, if you make a mistake someone will eventually find out. Climate Change was discovered over 150 years ago: it's kinda hard to believe that nobody has checked that work in all that time. If you were a climate contrarian, wouldn't the first thing you do be to check experimentally to see if CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
If the accepted science is actually wrong, then the only way that could be not generally known would be if there was a massive, enduring conspiracy suppressing the truth.
we need the resources that are abundant and the space from a terraformed planet if we are to eventually survive being overpopulated and the ever dwindling resources on this planet.
Mars is too far away for it's resources to make any difference to a shortage on Earth and Mars is too small to make a dent in the Earth's population - even if fully populated it could house a fraction of what the Earth can house. Plus it's cold and airless and bombarded with deadly radiation, even 100 000 years would not be sufficient to terraform it and without terraforming nobody would want to live there.
and I did
Apparently not.
It's pretty simple: one denialist tells me the temperature hasn't risen - another tells me that it has but through some means that they can't explain.
These versions of the hypothesis are completely contradictory. The evidence (which oddly, denialists don't seem to want to share) can only point to one of these being true. So: which is it? Is the temperature rising, or isn't it? If it is rising, what is causing it to rise, if not CO2 and other GHGs? If it is not rising, why does the data say otherwise?
What's the objective benefit of Spirit and Opportunity?
We're interested in the Solar System, and so we send probes into it. I see what you are getting at though, that this activity doesn't necessarily qualify as 'objectively beneficial' and that's a good point. But if we agree that learning more about the Solar System and indeed the world around us is an 'agreed benefit' then how does sending humans to Mars actually benefit that outcome?
What outcome does sending humans serve that sending robots doesn't do better?
What if we had said: "Let's not build [the giant machine called] CERN , because humans can do a better job of energising atoms to ridiculous levels and seeing what happens" would we have learned as much as we did? Is that idea actually any more ridiculous than sending a human to space instead of a 10 or 100 robots?
Pushing our science and knowledge is the way we create capabilities and very often the tangible benefit is the culmination of a long series of not so obviously beneficial advances.
But if we make those advances (e.g. in AI for self navigation, in solar cell technology, in material science) and then ignore those advances for a mere ideological reason "we want humans to go space" because we can't cope with the idea that robots do a better job in space than humans do then the material benefit of those discoveries is greatly lessened.
We know that doing a manned Mars mission requires solving many technological challenges, that I would argue by themselves have value. For example, maybe we have to find a way to fix radiation damage to the cells, that could have far-reaching applications.
If we are not motivated by the millions (billions?) of people who suffer radiation damage and cell degeneration NOW, why would we be motivated for the benefit of the 5 or 6 people who go to Mars? Maybe, what we ought to do is: (a) send a robot with a tissue sample to Mars, if there is something special about the deadly radiation there that we wouldn't see in a lab (b) spend the rest on finding a cure for cancer.
There are huge amounts of untapped energy and material resources out there.
In the pilbara region of Western Australia the mining operation is almost completely automated. Trains run for 1000 km - no driver. Trucks drive around the mines by themselves.
If we don't need humans in the pilbara to tap resources, we don't need them in space either - space is much further away than Western Australia (strange as that may seem).
Unless someone can come forward and provide a compelling reason why we should send humans (of all things) to Mars, any such venture is doomed to failure in the long term. By compelling, I mean, demonstrating some objective benefit that we mostly agree on. The reasons givens o far fall short of that benchmark:
1. "Because we can". We "can" also eat a bag of pinecones. Doesn't make it a good idea.
2. "We like to explore" - now we can use robots to explore for us. Why dick around on a dead rock when there are interesting places for us to go (via our robot allies)?
3. "We need a backup" - but humans aren't pigs or cows. You can't breed a herd to replace your old herd from a remnant number of bulls and heifers. Humans are culture and belief and outlook and songs and poetry. Whose culture will you choose to preserve on Mars? Will there be people there to carry on the lifestyle of the Bantu? The Zulu? The Fijians? How will you structure that society - according to the cultural norms of the Motswana? The Brahman caste system? Will you adopt Sharia Law?
4. "It's exciting" Exciting for a few. But in general, people are going about their lives and never thinking about Mars and landing on Mars. Look around. There is just not enough public interest.
You were told unambiguously by the AC that temperature (generally) is either increasing or decreasing. AC seemed accepting that we appear to be increasing. You ignored this, failed at reading comprehension, and elected to continue arguments with strawmen not present to defend themselves.
It's not me that failed reading comprehension. Read it again.
High-school physics lessons? I guess you didn't attend.
Wrong AGAIN!
Can't you guys get anything right?
Looks like your mate who runs that blog has updated it since you read it, to the effect that he no longer claims that NOAA thinks that 1997 was warmer than 2015 - and grudgingly admits that he misread the material. Apparently, this is NOAA's fault for not making the material clear enough for a numpty to understand.
Care to explain why?
Your logic breaks down as soon as there are two models to choose from. If one does have this 50/50 property then the other, which is predicting a different future temperature window, cannot also have this 50/50 property.
Yes and no. The models individually will track less or more than the actual observation. If the results are combined , then the consolidated line will track less more than the actual temperature. Neither case implies the models themselves aren't doing their job.
In which case, why do you need a gun? Couldn't you just beat home invaders to death with your fists?
So because you don't drink, nobody every drinks?
More like, because I don't drink, not everybody drinks, an even larger percentage never drinks to excess.
Presumably 'not everybody' shoots their wife either - I haven't shot mine. But through the magic of logic, this doesn't actually mean that nobody shoots their wife in a drunken rage.
Guess this didn't happen then [nydailynews.com]. or this. [fox10phoenix.com] or this. [timesfreepress.com] or this. [koco.com] or this. [cbslocal.com] Aren't the things that don't happen amazing?
It's more that the firearms aren't required. Most of those attacks would still have happened, and some would still have been fatal. Thus, it's probably better to address the domestic violence, you know?
Why are you shifting the goalposts? Are you having trouble justifying your original assertion?
In any case, I'm sure you are aware that domestic violence is more common than home invasion. The gun toting resident is a far greater danger in the house than the theoretical home invader: it remains to be seen which poses the greater danger when a home invasion is actually in progress - certainly worth considering.
In any case:
Most of those attacks would still have happened, and some would still have been fatal.
Aaaaaand some of them, let's be honest, many of them would not have happened, and very few of them would have resulted in deaths. Because if fists were as effective as guns the Marine Corp would take the field with knuckle dusters. Seems odd that you aren't interested in saving lives.
Nope. It's 'ok' to kill violent people who break into your home while you're there. The meth just shows an increased tendency to said violence.
Interesting. You come across as violent - pathologically so, I suspect. Would it be justified to kill you, do you think?
And also, he's constantly chasing a long legged bird with the aim of capturing/killing said bird with products he has purchased from ACME corporation. And you forgot to mention he is a coyote.
Not actually a counter-argument.
Your view of home invaders is cartoonish and as unbelievable as Wile E Coyote. And you are being serious.
As for the rest of your stuff, it's so amazing that you were able to find so many stories. You only had a few duplicates.
There was quite a long list of dead kids - it went on and on. To be honest, I got tired of citing.
and congratulations on finding a non-example of taking a firearm from somebody's hands. The criminal in that took it from the holster. That's how about 3 police officers lose their lives each year.
Well that makes all the difference then. I guess we are magically safe from your paranoid stupidity. Because the fact that the criminal took your gun doesn't matter. Only the way you were carrying it matters.
Sure. We don't need to worry about the dead kids. Just pile em up out back.
False. We worry about the dead kids. It's just that we think the solution's different.
It's you killing the kids. You ARE the problem, not the solution.
Granted, this is from the same group who has had a hard time naming the issue, going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming
Anthropomorphic?
If you don't even know what it's called, why should we believe you when you say that the science is wrong?
I'll wager that the list of AOGCM models described here will accurately predict the temperature incline within their error bars, out to 2030.
Measure date: 23 January 2030
Terms: 10:1 (i.e. you'll give me 10:1 odds), $50 (US) down.
Caveats: Some agreed variation on the predicted concentration of CO2 over the testing period will render the wager null, since this a human variation, not a model one.
Fails as I don't drink.
So because you don't drink, nobody every drinks? Well argued. Guess this didn't happen then. or this. or this. or this. or this. Aren't the things that don't happen amazing?
- I then stab my spouse to death because the gun wouldn't fire. outcome worse than 'bad'.
So it's ok to kill people while on methamphetamine, because people high on coke also kill people sometimes?
Well argued.
Scenario 2: (a) the burglar isn't a burglar, he's a home invader.
And also, he's constantly chasing a long legged bird with the aim of capturing/killing said bird with products he has purchased from ACME corporation. And you forgot to mention he is a coyote.
(b) daughter knows not to sneak in.
Oh. that's all right then, I guess. We don't need to worry about the dead kids.
(c) try finding this actually happening. Removing a firearm from an armed person's hands only really happens in the movies. It's too easy to just shoot somebody trying to snatch your weapon.
OK then
(d) bad conservative/libertarian police: So what? It's the intruder's fault for breaking in. If he doesn't want to risk getting shot, he shouldn't be breaking in.
Sure. We don't need to worry about the dead kids. Just pile em up out back.
Really? I don't see the connection
Because gun owners are, by and large, single issue voters. Politically you can do anything you please to then so long as you don't touch their guns.
Really? That's insane behaviour. Do you think these people realise that they are encouraging tyranny?
Scenario one: you come home drunk after a bad day, and in a drunken rage, your thoughts turn to violence and you attack your spouse: Case (a) The spouse grabs the gun and confronts you: Case (b) You shoot your spouse: outcome bad. In both cases, it's a better outcome if the gun doesn't fire.
Scenario two (a favored one for gun owners): You hear someone breaking into your house and stumble out of your bed: Case (a) The burglar, who has armed themselves and is armed, highly strung and anxious (because of stupid befuddled and armed home owners) shoots you. After all, you were still half asleep and they were alert and ready. Case (b) You shoot the intruder, but it turns out to be your teenage daughter sneaking in. Case (c) The intruder snatches the gun off you. Case (d) You shoot the intruder who is unarmed and would otherwise have run away at the first sign of trouble. Case (e) The intruder is really intent on doing you harm and you shoot them.
In cases a-d, the gun not going off is a better outcome.
In case (e) it's better if the gun goes off. But how likely is (e)? Do burglars generally decide to murder someone for no reason? Are burglars more likely to murder someone than the average joe?
So mathematically, it looks like (on average) it's better if the gun doesn't go off.
Citation?
Whatever the reason, if they'd wagered on more sane "you're models show too much warming" terms, they could have made some good money.
Except nobody would take that bet, because mathematically, it is always 50/50. A model will always predict higher or lower than the actual outcome. It will be one or the other, and actually it doesn't matter which, as long as the model correctly predicts within a useful percentile. Also the bet is meaningless: you could make a wager on something meaningful ("the average temperature between 2010 and 2020 will be within the error bands of model x") - in which case, for any GCM model (or later) the contrarians are on track to lose (again).