3 ms·

Please point out why the logic in the OP is fallacious. You shouldn't just call someone out like that without having some substance in your post. Plus, it woul

Please point out why the logic in the OP is fallacious. You shouldn't just call someone out like that without having some substance in your post. Plus, it would help undecided people like myself have more data points and logical arguments to consider on both sides.

cryptoz 11y ago
Sure. > Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale) 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. This quote is entirely nonsensical, it has no logical backing at all. The rates of temperature rise we are seeing right now are not to be expected based on our last ice age receding. The fallacy here is "made shit up and pretended it was truth". > Also, the "record" in this case only goes back 130 years, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old The record is a real record. Putting it in quotes implies that it isn't a record. That's false. Also, this implies that the age of the earth is relevant to how we act today. Does NYC or SF care about the temperature of the Earth during the formation of our solar system? No. It's not relevant. > so to try and make some sort of global warming generalization based on .00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious. Nobody is making that generalization, or using that scale of evidence. This is a fallacy because the post author has pretended that the IBM article quoted said that they (Weather Underground) used .00000000028% of available evidence to draw their conclusion. Again, this is false.
- James001 11y ago
  Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is an anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit up and pretending it was truth", in your own words. Also, noting the fact that the record only goes back 130 years is merely pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on "the record" have. Your post is rank with hypocrisy.
  - soundwave106 11y ago
    Longer sets of data exist that are not global in scale. The longest is the Central England Temperature set, going back to 1659. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature Beyond that, people have attempted reconstruction from other evidence. For instance I found an attempt at a 2000 year reconstruction using tree ring data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.ht... Assuming this reconstruction and others is sound, it is apparent that there definitely is a fair bit of natural temperature variability. But the recent temperature rise in the last 50 years certainly seem like aberration, in terms of rate of change.
  - dang 11y ago
    > Your post is rank with hypocrisy. This violates the HN guidelines, which we warned you about once already. We ban accounts that do this, so please stop doing it.
tremon 11y ago
No, I'm sorry. After half a century of political abuse of scientific research, the onus is not on us to educate you. We're way past the point where unfounded distractions like the GP's can be attributed to ignorance. Please let the people willing to do the work work, and put in some effort to educate yourself if you want to get involved.

cryptoz 11y ago

Sure. > Since we are coming out of an ice age a mere (on the geologic time scale) 12,000 years ago, we should expect increasingly warm temperatures. No we shouldn't expect this kind of temperature rise. Not like this. This quote is entirely nonsensical, it has no logical backing at all. The rates of temperature rise we are seeing right now are not to be expected based on our last ice age receding. The fallacy here is "made shit up and pretended it was truth". > Also, the "record" in this case only goes back 130 years, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old The record is a real record. Putting it in quotes implies that it isn't a record. That's false. Also, this implies that the age of the earth is relevant to how we act today. Does NYC or SF care about the temperature of the Earth during the formation of our solar system? No. It's not relevant. > so to try and make some sort of global warming generalization based on .00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious. Nobody is making that generalization, or using that scale of evidence. This is a fallacy because the post author has pretended that the IBM article quoted said that they (Weather Underground) used .00000000028% of available evidence to draw their conclusion. Again, this is false.

James001 11y ago
Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it true. You should reply with a citation proving that the rate of temperature rise is an anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit up and pretending it was truth", in your own words. Also, noting the fact that the record only goes back 130 years is merely pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on "the record" have. Your post is rank with hypocrisy.
- soundwave106 11y ago
  Longer sets of data exist that are not global in scale. The longest is the Central England Temperature set, going back to 1659. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature Beyond that, people have attempted reconstruction from other evidence. For instance I found an attempt at a 2000 year reconstruction using tree ring data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.ht... Assuming this reconstruction and others is sound, it is apparent that there definitely is a fair bit of natural temperature variability. But the recent temperature rise in the last 50 years certainly seem like aberration, in terms of rate of change.
- dang 11y ago
  > Your post is rank with hypocrisy. This violates the HN guidelines, which we warned you about once already. We ban accounts that do this, so please stop doing it.

tremon 11y ago

No, I'm sorry. After half a century of political abuse of scientific research, the onus is not on us to educate you. We're way past the point where unfounded distractions like the GP's can be attributed to ignorance. Please let the people willing to do the work work, and put in some effort to educate yourself if you want to get involved.