Even at very low speeds, a civilization with a 10 million year "head start" (which is nothing on the timescale of the universe) would be able to send autonomous robots across the galaxy. At least that what we would do if we had sufficient enough technology. This is essentially the paradox.
So many assumptions here. Maybe they’d be able to, but why would they want to? What’s the point of probing a galaxy that you can only ever explore below the speed of light, at the cost of ungodly amounts of energy and eons of time? Why wouldn’t that same civilization stick within 1-100 light years instead? There is only a paradox if an advanced civilization with high tech is so irrational that they can’t control their breeding and doesn’t care about time dilation and efficient use of resources.
It also assumes that it’s safe to broadcast your presence to the whole galaxy that way. It assumes a lot of unproven ideas and then hand waves at a “sufficiently advanced” species that has only apparently enjoyed technological advancement rather than personal or social advancement. Maybe humans as we know them would spread unmanned probes across the galaxy for the sake of doing it, but I have doubts that humans capable of th feat would do it. I suspect we’d be wiser, or we’d be dead.
the famous "hockey stick" actor was exposed using temperature adjustment code with a comment called "fudge factor" to "hide the decline" that we found out from climategate leak
In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.
Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement): yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]
0.75 ; fudge factorhttps://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source...
To be charitable though, I don’t necessarily blame people for looking at the magnitude of the problem and deciding to go deeply into denial. With the dearth of hope and workable solutions, pretending that there is no problem and attacking old numbers probably feels better than the alternatives. What I can’t forgive or stand though, are people who deny because the solutions are politically unpalatable to them.
A better read than “American Thinker” would be https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change (Especially the many and varied citations)
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_consensus_on_anthropogeni...