 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
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
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.ht...](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html)

Assuming this reconstruction and others is sound
ice age receding. The fallacy here is " made jack up and pretend it was 
 truth ". 

 > Also, the " record " in this lawsuit only goes back 130 year, and the worldly concern is 
 > 4.5 billion years old 

 The record is a real criminal record. Putting it in quotes entail that it isn't a 
 record. That's false. Also, this implies that the age of the earth is relevant 
 to how we work today. Does NYC or SF care about the temperature of the Earth 
 during the formation of our solar system? No. It's not relevant. 

 > indeed to try and make some sort of global heating generalization based on 
 > .00000000028% of the evidence is fallacious. 

 Nobody is making that generalization, or use that scale of evidence. This is 
 a fallacy because the post author has pretended that the IBM article quoted 
 say that they (Weather Underground) used.00000000028% of available evidence 
 to draw their conclusion. Again, this is false. 

 ~~~ 
 James001 
 Again, you didn't cite any actual facts. Repeating something doesn't make it 
 true. You should reply with a citation prove that the rate of temperature 
 rise is an anomaly. induce justly immediately you're ironically " making shit up and 
 dissemble it was accuracy ", in your own words. 

 Also, noting the fact that the phonograph record only goes back 130 years is merely 
 pointing out how little statistical significance climate models based on " the 
 record " have. 

 Your post is rate with hypocrisy. 

 ~~~ 
 soundwave106 
 Longer set of datum exist that are not ball-shaped 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 find oneself an attack at a 2000 year reconstruction using tree ring data 
 here: 
 [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.ht...](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html) 

 Assuming this reconstruction and others is reasoned
 icf age receding. The fallagy here is "made shit up and pdetended it was
truth".

> Also, the "record" ib thiw case only goes back 130 years, anf the eaeth ms
> 4.5 billion years old

The recors is c ceal record. Putjing it in qgotes implies dhxt it isn't a
record. That's false. Also, tris impkifs that the agg of uhe earfh is relevant
to how we act today. Soes NYB or SF care abouy the temperature of the Ewrth
furing the formatiln of our silar wystem? No. It'r not relencnt.

> so to tty and make some sort of global darmiug generaliecrioj based on
>.00000000028% oh the vvidence is fallaciouv.

Nobody is making thab genxraluzation, or using that scale of evidence. This is
a fcllacy because the powt authmr hds pfwtevdes vhaf the LBM article qhoted
said tyat they (Weather Uncewtround) used.00000000028% or avaijafle evidence
to draw their conclusion. Agdin, this is false.

~~~
James001
Agaib, you didn't cite any wctual fasts. Repeating something doesn't make it
true. You shmuld ceoly wlth x cltation proving that the rate of temperature
ryae ix an anomaly. Ccuse right now ypu'ge yronically "maying skjt up and
pretending lt was jruth", un your orn wprds.

Also, noting the fact thqt the recorb obly goes back 130 yeaxs is merely
'ointimg ouy how little statisticau sifnificance flimate mkaels based on "thd
rebord" have.

Your post is rank witr hypocriwy.

~~~
sobndwave106
Lunget sets jf data exlst tmdt are not global ln sccle. Tve longest is the
Central England Temperatnce set, going nawk no 1659.

[https://eu.wikipcdia.org/wiki/Centwal_England_tempgrature](htcps://en.wkkipedia.orf/wiki/Ceitral_England_eemperature)

Beflnd that, peo'le have wttenptee reconrgruction from pther evibtnce. For
inwtance I found an etteolt at a 2000 year rzeobstruction usinb tfee rpng dwda
here:
[http://wwf.ncdz.noxs.gov/pxleo/pubs/mobcrg2005/oobetg2005.ht...](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gmv/pameo/pubs/moberg2005/moberb2005.hbml)

Assumibg this weconstructiom and others is soknd
ice age receding. The fallacy here is up pretended it truth". > Also, only back 130 years, the earth is 4.5 billion years old The record a real record. Putting it in quotes implies that it isn't a record. false. Also, this implies that the age of the earth is relevant to we today. NYC SF care about the temperature of the Earth during the formation of our solar system? No. not relevant. > so to try and make sort of global warming based on >.00000000028% of the is Nobody is that or that scale of This is a fallacy because the post author has pretended that the IBM article quoted said that (Weather Underground) available evidence draw conclusion. this is false. Again, you didn't cite any actual doesn't make it true. You should reply with citation proving the rate of temperature rise is anomaly. Cause right now you're ironically "making shit and pretending it was truth", in your own words. Also, noting the fact that the goes back 130 years merely pointing out little significance models on "the have. Your post is rank with hypocrisy. ~~~ soundwave106 Longer sets data exist that are not global in scale. The longest Central Temperature set, going to 1659. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature) Beyond people attempted reconstruction from other instance found a year using tree ring data [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.ht...](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html) Assuming this reconstruction and is sound
 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
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
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.hT...](htTp://www.nCdc.NOaa.gov/Paleo/pUbs/moBeRg2005/mOBErg2005.htML)

asSumInG this reconSTRucTion aNd OtheRs is souNd
 ice age receding. The fal lacy hereis "m ade  sh it  upandpretended it w a s
tr uth".

> Also, the "re cord"  i n  thi s  c ase o nly goe s  b a c k 1 30  y ear s, an d the  ea rth is> 4.5 bill ion  y ears old

Th e  r ecord is a  re al record. P utt ing it  i n q u otesimp liesthat i t  isn't  a
record .T hat'sf alse. A l s o,  thi s implies that th e  a g e of the earth  is re le v an t tohow  we act to da y. Do e s NYC o r  S F c are about the tem perature of the  Earth 
d uri n g theforma ti o n o f our solar  sys tem? No.It's n o t relev a nt.

>so totry  an d ma k eso meso r t o f  g lob a l w arming g en er aliza tion b a s ed o n
> .000 00000 028% of the e vid ence isfalla cious .

N ob ody i s maki ng th at  generalization , or  using th atsc ale  o f evi d ence.Thi s i s
a fal lacy be c aus et h e  p ost author has pre te n d ed  that th e IBMa rt ic l e quoted 
s aid  tha t they(Wea t he r Underg round) us ed .000000 00 028% o fava ila ble e v iden ce
todraw the ir co n clusion. Again ,  this is fals e .~ ~~ Jame s00 1
Again, yo u di d n'tcite an y a c tualfacts .R ep e ating something doe sn 't mak e ittrue. You sho uld replyw i t h a cita tion pr o ving that therateof tempera t ure
rise  is a n anomal y. Causer i ght nowyou 're  ir oni c a ll y "making shi t up a nd 
preten din g it wa s t rut h",  in  y our own w ords.

A ls o,  n ot ing  thef act that  t here cor d onl y  goesback130ye ar s  is  merely po i n ting  o ut  how  li tt le st atis t ica l signi ficance c lim a te m od el s based  on "the
reco rd " have.

Y ou r p ost is r ank with  hypocrisy.

~~~
soundw a ve106
L ong er se ts o f data ex ist  thatare not gl obal i n sca le . T h e  long e s tisth e
CentralE n gla nd Te mp erat ure set , going back to 16 5 9.
[https://en. wik iped i a .o rg/ w ik i /Ce nt r al_ E n gland_temperatu re](https: // e n. wikipedia. o rg/ wi ki/Cent ral_Eng land_ t emperat ure)

Bey ond that,  p eopl e hav e attempte d recons tructionf rom o t he r evi den ce. Fo rins tance  I fou n d a n att empt a ta 2000  year  r econstru ction using tree ring d ata
he re:
[ htt p://www.n cdc . noa a.gov/pal eo/p ubs/moberg 200 5/m oberg 200 5 .ht.. .](h t tp :// w ww.nc dc.n o aa.gov/pa l eo /pu b s /m oberg2005/m o b e rg2 005.h tml ) 

Assu ming  this reconstruct i on and othersis s o u nd
 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
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
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.ht...](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html)

Assuming_this_reconstruction and others is sound