4 ms·

A shame people push down this comment because they don't like it. It is rational and true. It is also rational and likely true that these temps have happened in

A shame people push down this comment because they don't like it. It is rational and true. It is also rational and likely true that these temps have happened in the recent past - say within the last 5000 years. Of course it was much hotter a really long time ago, as others have pointed out. But that fails to contradict the validity of this comment. You can believe in climate change and be skeptical of the wording around it.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> It is also rational and likely true that these temps have happened in the recent past - say within the last 5000 years There is zero evidence for the hypothesis that Paris was this hot at any time in the last 10,000 years. There is a lot of evidence for maximum annual temperatures in Paris over every other stage of the Holocene being lower. It is thus not a rational view to hold in light of the preponderance of evidence. (It is fair to search for counter-evidence, but not to reject the claim.)
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  Where is this evidence? We don't have exact recordings that far back. Further thought: All it requires for the title to be falsified is a single oddly hot day to have occured say 4725 years ago. There's never going to be evidence with sufficient resolution to catch that. It seems quite plausible that we're cranking up temps recently. But why do so many fervently defend a rather disingenuous title?
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > We don't have exact recordings that far back We don't have exact recordings of anything. Certain minerals form differently depending on ambient temperatures. For area temperature estimation, these methods are more precise than most thermometers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
criley2 7y ago
I don't think it was wrong to downvote the comment and the comment was unfairly pedantic and inaccurate. Anyone with even a tiny amount of scientific literacy knows what the phrase "since records began" means, and that phrase is entirely honest and not used at all to hide the size of the data set. OP's issues with a completely routine and accurate description, since they cannot be considered a fair criticism of normal language by an unbiased viewer, thus must be due to their scientific illiteracy or inexperience with the subject, or due to their politics causing them to "find any reason to object" leading them to settle on unfair and bad pedantry.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> It is also rational and likely true that these temps have happened in the recent past - say within the last 5000 years There is zero evidence for the hypothesis that Paris was this hot at any time in the last 10,000 years. There is a lot of evidence for maximum annual temperatures in Paris over every other stage of the Holocene being lower. It is thus not a rational view to hold in light of the preponderance of evidence. (It is fair to search for counter-evidence, but not to reject the claim.)

abstractbarista 7y ago
Where is this evidence? We don't have exact recordings that far back. Further thought: All it requires for the title to be falsified is a single oddly hot day to have occured say 4725 years ago. There's never going to be evidence with sufficient resolution to catch that. It seems quite plausible that we're cranking up temps recently. But why do so many fervently defend a rather disingenuous title?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > We don't have exact recordings that far back We don't have exact recordings of anything. Certain minerals form differently depending on ambient temperatures. For area temperature estimation, these methods are more precise than most thermometers.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

criley2 7y ago

I don't think it was wrong to downvote the comment and the comment was unfairly pedantic and inaccurate. Anyone with even a tiny amount of scientific literacy knows what the phrase "since records began" means, and that phrase is entirely honest and not used at all to hide the size of the data set. OP's issues with a completely routine and accurate description, since they cannot be considered a fair criticism of normal language by an unbiased viewer, thus must be due to their scientific illiteracy or inexperience with the subject, or due to their politics causing them to "find any reason to object" leading them to settle on unfair and bad pedantry.