Just Lookin' For A Little Honesty...

[Big Fitz]

Just Lookin' For A Little Honesty...

Here is a useful tip for ya PC...

Stop reading your own posts. That should help.

This was the funnest thread in a week, although admittedly, making a monkey out of PC is not a particularly high degree of difficulty exercise.

U has a fail, goggie... but u knoo dat.

 

[Trajan]

So it's a lie to say that ABC did any crediting.

Its a figure of speech dude.......jesus Christ.

No, if you go back and actually read it in context you will see that it was an accusation. It was part of the argument that ABC was biased.

context??

is;
# discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation
# the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; "the historical context"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I have no idea how you got there, they laid it out , they included the reports name and the fact that she was in essence reading copy or quoting.



If they had left out the economists citation as described by the reporter, so at to change context or nuance the snippet to make it appear it was an editorial opinion, say the anchor which speaks as a voice of f the network et al unless other stipulated, sure you'd have a point. This is not the case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just Lookin' For A Little Honesty...

Here is a useful tip for ya PC...

Stop reading your own posts. That should help.

This was the funnest thread in a week, although admittedly, making a monkey out of PC is not a particularly high degree of difficulty exercise.

U has a fail, goggie... but u knoo dat.

I, or we, have proven all the lies that were in the OP. We don't have to get you to admit it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, predicted, "The stimulus will have the effect of increasing jobs by about half a million above the number that would have been the case in the absence of that."

How many times did the networks report that prediction?

I don't know, and this means what exactly?

It's Bush's economic advisor predicting what would happen if the 2008 BUSH stimulus package was passed.

The fact that no one here has any clue about it ought to tell you something.

 

[Trajan]

This was the funnest thread in a week, although admittedly, making a monkey out of PC is not a particularly high degree of difficulty exercise.

U has a fail, goggie... but u knoo dat.

I, or we, have proven all the lies that were in the OP. We don't have to get you to admit it.

really?....at this point I a not even sure we discussing the OP; the comparative number of stories ran by the Nets that described Bush economic policies and unemployment in negative terms vs NOT ONLY the lack of coverage ala the Obama's "prediction", but his economic issues and challenges of unemployment overall......


thats the topic. I showed MM links to archives of vids and verbatim broadcasts, I told her what the mechanism were they all, not just mrc use to research and how to verify that, I asked for an example, from say media maters as to how ( for a comparison as to method) they do their research that results in similar stories etc. and how they explain their analysis and what they use as tools.....etc...

Yet, we are stuck on an attempt to denigrate "context" which as an example, I am sorry to say speaks for the whole approach to this topic.

Q have you read, actually read the entire links and sppting links from the OP? Not just the gloss she added as 'high points', the links?

A- I KNOW you have not, or some of your past remarks would never have been made, there would have been no point in making them at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

U has a fail, goggie... but u knoo dat.

I, or we, have proven all the lies that were in the OP. We don't have to get you to admit it.

really?....at this point I a not even sure we discussing the OP; the comparative number of stories ran by the Nets that described Bush economic policies and unemployment in negative terms vs NOT ONLY the lack of coverage ala the Obama's "prediction", but his economic issues and challenges of unemployment overall......


thats the topic. I showed MM links to archives of vids and verbatim broadcasts, I told her what the mechanism were they all, not just mrc use to research and how to verify that, I asked for an example, from say media maters as to how ( for a comparison as to method) they do their research that results in similar stories etc. and how they explain their analysis and what they use as tools.....etc...

Yet, we are stuck on an attempt to denigrate "context" which as an example, I am sorry to say speaks for the whole approach to this topic.

Q have you read, actually read the entire links and sppting links from the OP? Not just the gloss she added as 'high points', the links?

A- I KNOW you have not, or some of your past remarks would never have been made, there would have been no point in making them at all.

I've already proven the OP is lying. Are you just pulling that rightwing stall tactic now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

U has a fail, goggie... but u knoo dat.

I, or we, have proven all the lies that were in the OP. We don't have to get you to admit it.

really?....at this point I a not even sure we discussing the OP; the comparative number of stories ran by the Nets that described Bush economic policies and unemployment in negative terms vs NOT ONLY the lack of coverage ala the Obama's "prediction", but his economic issues and challenges of unemployment overall......


thats the topic. I showed MM links to archives of vids and verbatim broadcasts, I told her what the mechanism were they all, not just mrc use to research and how to verify that, I asked for an example, from say media maters as to how ( for a comparison as to method) they do their research that results in similar stories etc. and how they explain their analysis and what they use as tools.....etc...

Yet, we are stuck on an attempt to denigrate "context" which as an example, I am sorry to say speaks for the whole approach to this topic.

Q have you read, actually read the entire links and sppting links from the OP? Not just the gloss she added as 'high points', the links?

A- I KNOW you have not, or some of your past remarks would never have been made, there would have been no point in making them at all.

Let me try this one more time. The OP is an attempt to show the network news was biased because they did not devote enough time to the Obama administration's promises and guarantees about the unemployment rate if the stimulus passed.

They made no promises. They made no guarantees.

Therefore the OP is complaining that the networks did not devote enough time to a story that NEVER HAPPENED.

Question: how much time is enough time to devote to reporting something that NEVER HAPPENED?

Obama did not bomb Libya today. How many stories should the networks do today about Obama having bombed Libya?

 

[Trajan]

I, or we, have proven all the lies that were in the OP. We don't have to get you to admit it.

really?....at this point I a not even sure we discussing the OP; the comparative number of stories ran by the Nets that described Bush economic policies and unemployment in negative terms vs NOT ONLY the lack of coverage ala the Obama's "prediction", but his economic issues and challenges of unemployment overall......


thats the topic. I showed MM links to archives of vids and verbatim broadcasts, I told her what the mechanism were they all, not just mrc use to research and how to verify that, I asked for an example, from say media maters as to how ( for a comparison as to method) they do their research that results in similar stories etc. and how they explain their analysis and what they use as tools.....etc...

Yet, we are stuck on an attempt to denigrate "context" which as an example, I am sorry to say speaks for the whole approach to this topic.

Q have you read, actually read the entire links and sppting links from the OP? Not just the gloss she added as 'high points', the links?

A- I KNOW you have not, or some of your past remarks would never have been made, there would have been no point in making them at all.

Let me try this one more time. The OP is an attempt to show the network news was biased because they did not devote enough time to the Obama administration's promises and guarantees about the unemployment rate if the stimulus passed.

They made no promises. They made no guarantees.

Therefore the OP is complaining that the networks did not devote enough time to a story that NEVER HAPPENED.

Question: how much time is enough time to devote to reporting something that NEVER HAPPENED?

Obama did not bomb Libya today. How many stories should the networks do today about Obama having bombed Libya?

a story that never happended I see. You can focus on what you wish, IF you have an issue with guarantee ( as I do ) promise vs prediction vs forecast hey have at, the effect is the same, the stories OF the ‘prediction’ cum forecast whatever, were not covered with the same alacrity and negative gusto as bushes economic ‘failings’ either in number or slant, that, is the point, the word promise or prediction ( and were used in the op as well AND in the links that you have not read) does not fundamentally change the argument, you are using that as an out, where in, in effect changes nothing.


And just for arguments sake, vaunted politi- fact...rates the promise issue ’barely true’ not 'false', I think they intrsically understand that a presidential prediction based on a HUGE request is and equates, that why they hedge as well, as they allude here-
"That sure doesn't sound like a full-fledged promise to us.".....hummmmm and hey you know huff-po used promise too so....anyway I digress...

Some points from the links-



Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

The networks, however, chose to ignore these clear signs that the stimulus had failed to create jobs and busied themselves calling for more of the same. Little did they remember the harsh criticism they had for President George W. Bush when unemployment was below 5 percent.



The broadcast networks consistently portrayed Bush as failing to fix the economy. In 2006, the average unemployment rate for the year was 4.8 percent. However, 58 percent of the stories about the economy in the year leading up to the 2006 midterm election were spun negatively.

NBC's Brian Williams did just that on April 7, 2006, when he portrayed the White House point of view as spin. Williams said that Bush was trying to "convince Americans that the economy is in fact on a roll. But as NBC News chief financial correspondent Anne Thompson tells us tonight, the economic picture is a bit more complicated." Thompson then cited a poll saying that "59 percent of Americans disapproved of the president's handling of the economy."



SPUN-employment

see below for snips form this link embedded in the OP link-

The 2005-2006 mid-term elections took place in a time of both economic growth and near-record low unemployment. Economists who had once considered 6 percent unemployment the lowest the number could go, revised that view to 5 percent under both Bush and Bill Clinton. In that 12-month span, unemployment actually averaged 4.8 percent and would drop as low as 4.4 percent the final quarter of 2006. Only 344,000 jobs were added during that year, about one seventh the number added during the previous mid-terms.

The Bush White House regularly battled the media for coverage indicating how strong the economy was. It usually failed. The issue surfaced again in April 2006, after the monthly numbers came out and 211,000 new jobs were added to the economy. The White House made a push to highlight positive job growth and 4.7 percent unemployment.
I suggest reading the text of that link as I can only post small snippets.

 

[Big Fitz]

This was the funnest thread in a week, although admittedly, making a monkey out of PC is not a particularly high degree of difficulty exercise.

U has a fail, goggie... but u knoo dat.

I, or we, have proven all the lies that were in the OP. We don't have to get you to admit it.

mmmmm proofiness. Like truthiness... only less truthy and more spinnier.

Of course when you try to shove words in my mouth by making it look like I even professed such a rumor about Obama bombing Libya. Helps your case so much.

 

[NYcarbineer]

really?....at this point I a not even sure we discussing the OP; the comparative number of stories ran by the Nets that described Bush economic policies and unemployment in negative terms vs NOT ONLY the lack of coverage ala the Obama's "prediction", but his economic issues and challenges of unemployment overall......


thats the topic. I showed MM links to archives of vids and verbatim broadcasts, I told her what the mechanism were they all, not just mrc use to research and how to verify that, I asked for an example, from say media maters as to how ( for a comparison as to method) they do their research that results in similar stories etc. and how they explain their analysis and what they use as tools.....etc...

Yet, we are stuck on an attempt to denigrate "context" which as an example, I am sorry to say speaks for the whole approach to this topic.

Q have you read, actually read the entire links and sppting links from the OP? Not just the gloss she added as 'high points', the links?

A- I KNOW you have not, or some of your past remarks would never have been made, there would have been no point in making them at all.

Let me try this one more time. The OP is an attempt to show the network news was biased because they did not devote enough time to the Obama administration's promises and guarantees about the unemployment rate if the stimulus passed.

They made no promises. They made no guarantees.

Therefore the OP is complaining that the networks did not devote enough time to a story that NEVER HAPPENED.

Question: how much time is enough time to devote to reporting something that NEVER HAPPENED?

Obama did not bomb Libya today. How many stories should the networks do today about Obama having bombed Libya?

a story that never happended I see. You can focus on what you wish, IF you have an issue with guarantee ( as I do ) promise vs prediction vs forecast hey have at, the effect is the same, the stories OF the ‘prediction’ cum forecast whatever, were not covered with the same alacrity and negative gusto as bushes economic ‘failings’ either in number or slant, that, is the point, the word promise or prediction ( and were used in the op as well AND in the links that you have not read) does not fundamentally change the argument, you are using that as an out, where in, in effect changes nothing.


And just for arguments sake, vaunted politi- fact...rates the promise issue ’barely true’ not 'false', I think they intrsically understand that a presidential prediction based on a HUGE request is and equates, that why they hedge as well, as they allude here-
"That sure doesn't sound like a full-fledged promise to us.".....hummmmm and hey you know huff-po used promise too so....anyway I digress...

Some points from the links-



Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

The networks, however, chose to ignore these clear signs that the stimulus had failed to create jobs and busied themselves calling for more of the same. Little did they remember the harsh criticism they had for President George W. Bush when unemployment was below 5 percent.



The broadcast networks consistently portrayed Bush as failing to fix the economy. In 2006, the average unemployment rate for the year was 4.8 percent. However, 58 percent of the stories about the economy in the year leading up to the 2006 midterm election were spun negatively.

NBC's Brian Williams did just that on April 7, 2006, when he portrayed the White House point of view as spin. Williams said that Bush was trying to "convince Americans that the economy is in fact on a roll. But as NBC News chief financial correspondent Anne Thompson tells us tonight, the economic picture is a bit more complicated." Thompson then cited a poll saying that "59 percent of Americans disapproved of the president's handling of the economy."



SPUN-employment

see below for snips form this link embedded in the OP link-

The 2005-2006 mid-term elections took place in a time of both economic growth and near-record low unemployment. Economists who had once considered 6 percent unemployment the lowest the number could go, revised that view to 5 percent under both Bush and Bill Clinton. In that 12-month span, unemployment actually averaged 4.8 percent and would drop as low as 4.4 percent the final quarter of 2006. Only 344,000 jobs were added during that year, about one seventh the number added during the previous mid-terms.

The Bush White House regularly battled the media for coverage indicating how strong the economy was. It usually failed. The issue surfaced again in April 2006, after the monthly numbers came out and 211,000 new jobs were added to the economy. The White House made a push to highlight positive job growth and 4.7 percent unemployment.
I suggest reading the text of that link as I can only post small snippets.

They did not promise 8% unemployment.

They did not guarantee 8% unemployment.

 

[Trajan]

uh huh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[a story that never happended I see. You can focus on what you wish, IF you have an issue with guarantee ( as I do ) promise vs prediction vs forecast hey have at, the effect is the same, the stories OF the ‘prediction’ cum forecast whatever, were not covered with the same alacrity and negative gusto as bushes economic ‘failings’ either in number or slant, that, is the point, the word promise or prediction ( and were used in the op as well AND in the links that you have not read) does not fundamentally change the argument, you are using that as an out, where in, in effect changes nothing.


.

Pointing out that the premises of the OP are outright lies is some sort of 'out'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know, and this means what exactly?

It's Bush's economic advisor predicting what would happen if the 2008 BUSH stimulus package was passed.

The fact that no one here has any clue about it ought to tell you something.

Bush passed a stimulus package in 2008, that had overwhelming Republican support...

...it failed.

How much have you ever heard it talked about?

Do you even remember it?

 

[Trajan]

[a story that never happended I see. You can focus on what you wish, IF you have an issue with guarantee ( as I do ) promise vs prediction vs forecast hey have at, the effect is the same, the stories OF the ‘prediction’ cum forecast whatever, were not covered with the same alacrity and negative gusto as bushes economic ‘failings’ either in number or slant, that, is the point, the word promise or prediction ( and were used in the op as well AND in the links that you have not read) does not fundamentally change the argument, you are using that as an out, where in, in effect changes nothing.


.

Pointing out that the premises of the OP are outright lies is some sort of 'out'?

uhm, so now after the last post you have gotten around to reading my post?

you have not adressed a premise, you have addressed the use of poor pejorative language.

its been asked and answered, we have established that guarantee is wrong, period, promise to an extent and prediction or forecast best. it however as I have said 2 or 3 times now is not germane, the larger point is not effected by their use of either as it applies to the point of the link in the OP and its subordinate link I have provided along with some salient quotes.

 

[Trajan]

It's Bush's economic advisor predicting what would happen if the 2008 BUSH stimulus package was passed.

The fact that no one here has any clue about it ought to tell you something.

Bush passed a stimulus package in 2008, that had overwhelming Republican support...

...it failed.

How much have you ever heard it talked about?

Do you even remember it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush passed a stimulus package in 2008, that had overwhelming Republican support...

...it failed.

How much have you ever heard it talked about?

Do you even remember it?

Your quote is all fucked up I'm not fixing your shoddy work, but back to the topic:

If the assertion here is that the networks treated Bush differently on economic stimulus plans than they did Obama,

why is it not relevant to actually look at a Bush stimulus plan and compare how the media talked or didn't talk about IT?

Bush's stimulus failed, his chief economic advisor made a prediction that was way off the mark, and yet, nobody seems to know or care whether the networks did or didn't make a zillion references to it over the next year or two.

Why is that?

 

[Trajan]

Your quote is all fucked up I'm not fixing your shoddy work, but back to the topic:

there is noting but the strawman picture as my response, I see you're falling back to personal baiting. leave it at the door.

If the assertion here is that the networks treated Bush differently on economic stimulus plans than they did Obama,

you are doing it again.
I invited you to read the links and subordinate links, sppting the OP, you most clearly have not, I don't understand how one can carry on asking multiple responses to a thread where in you have not even availed yourself of the information provided that speaks to the OP.

why is it not relevant to actually look at a Bush stimulus plan and compare how the media talked or didn't talk about IT?

Bush's stimulus failed, his chief economic advisor made a prediction that was way off the mark, and yet, nobody seems to know or care whether the networks did or didn't make a zillion references to it over the next year or two.

Why is that?

and , one more time........I have to give you props though, you have hit the quinfecta ; strawman ala your argumentum ad ignorantiam, the ever present failure to state, false emphasis and spurious similarity…..I blame myself for letting this just roll down hill by responding, it’s been a waste of time, so until; you exhibit knowledge of the links that start at the OP, peace out.

 

[MaggieMae]

Let me try this one more time. The OP is an attempt to show the network news was biased because they did not devote enough time to the Obama administration's promises and guarantees about the unemployment rate if the stimulus passed.

They made no promises. They made no guarantees.

Therefore the OP is complaining that the networks did not devote enough time to a story that NEVER HAPPENED.

Question: how much time is enough time to devote to reporting something that NEVER HAPPENED?

Obama did not bomb Libya today. How many stories should the networks do today about Obama having bombed Libya?

a story that never happended I see. You can focus on what you wish, IF you have an issue with guarantee ( as I do ) promise vs prediction vs forecast hey have at, the effect is the same, the stories OF the ‘prediction’ cum forecast whatever, were not covered with the same alacrity and negative gusto as bushes economic ‘failings’ either in number or slant, that, is the point, the word promise or prediction ( and were used in the op as well AND in the links that you have not read) does not fundamentally change the argument, you are using that as an out, where in, in effect changes nothing.


And just for arguments sake, vaunted politi- fact...rates the promise issue ’barely true’ not 'false', I think they intrsically understand that a presidential prediction based on a HUGE request is and equates, that why they hedge as well, as they allude here-
"That sure doesn't sound like a full-fledged promise to us.".....hummmmm and hey you know huff-po used promise too so....anyway I digress...

Some points from the links-



Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

The networks, however, chose to ignore these clear signs that the stimulus had failed to create jobs and busied themselves calling for more of the same. Little did they remember the harsh criticism they had for President George W. Bush when unemployment was below 5 percent.



The broadcast networks consistently portrayed Bush as failing to fix the economy. In 2006, the average unemployment rate for the year was 4.8 percent. However, 58 percent of the stories about the economy in the year leading up to the 2006 midterm election were spun negatively.

NBC's Brian Williams did just that on April 7, 2006, when he portrayed the White House point of view as spin. Williams said that Bush was trying to "convince Americans that the economy is in fact on a roll. But as NBC News chief financial correspondent Anne Thompson tells us tonight, the economic picture is a bit more complicated." Thompson then cited a poll saying that "59 percent of Americans disapproved of the president's handling of the economy."



SPUN-employment

see below for snips form this link embedded in the OP link-

The 2005-2006 mid-term elections took place in a time of both economic growth and near-record low unemployment. Economists who had once considered 6 percent unemployment the lowest the number could go, revised that view to 5 percent under both Bush and Bill Clinton. In that 12-month span, unemployment actually averaged 4.8 percent and would drop as low as 4.4 percent the final quarter of 2006. Only 344,000 jobs were added during that year, about one seventh the number added during the previous mid-terms.

The Bush White House regularly battled the media for coverage indicating how strong the economy was. It usually failed. The issue surfaced again in April 2006, after the monthly numbers came out and 211,000 new jobs were added to the economy. The White House made a push to highlight positive job growth and 4.7 percent unemployment.
I suggest reading the text of that link as I can only post small snippets.

They did not promise 8% unemployment.

They did not guarantee 8% unemployment.

What's unbelievable to me is that this "8%" thingie has become such a HUGE issue for the right wing that apparently think tanks have spent hours and hours and hours collecting media material on it, not to mention the time spent on it right here.

As I've said at least twice, so...what?! The unemployment rate is what it is, and THAT is what ALL media should be concentrating on, not backtracking just in order to establish some ridiculous GOTCHA moment. How on earth does that help?

 

[MaggieMae]

Your quote is all fucked up I'm not fixing your shoddy work, but back to the topic:

If the assertion here is that the networks treated Bush differently on economic stimulus plans than they did Obama,

why is it not relevant to actually look at a Bush stimulus plan and compare how the media talked or didn't talk about IT?

Bush's stimulus failed, his chief economic advisor made a prediction that was way off the mark, and yet, nobody seems to know or care whether the networks did or didn't make a zillion references to it over the next year or two.

Why is that?

Because everybody got a $250 (or more) check in the mail. BIG DIFFERENCE when actual cash can be felt. Who's gonna criticize that? Of course the overall price tag was $170 billion and did nothing to stimulate the economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your quote is all fucked up I'm not fixing your shoddy work, but back to the topic:

there is noting but the strawman picture as my response, I see you're falling back to personal baiting. leave it at the door.






you are doing it again.
I invited you to read the links and subordinate links, sppting the OP, you most clearly have not, I don't understand how one can carry on asking multiple responses to a thread where in you have not even availed yourself of the information provided that speaks to the OP.

why is it not relevant to actually look at a Bush stimulus plan and compare how the media talked or didn't talk about IT?

Bush's stimulus failed, his chief economic advisor made a prediction that was way off the mark, and yet, nobody seems to know or care whether the networks did or didn't make a zillion references to it over the next year or two.

Why is that?

and , one more time........I have to give you props though, you have hit the quinfecta ; strawman ala your argumentum ad ignorantiam, the ever present failure to state, false emphasis and spurious similarity…..I blame myself for letting this just roll down hill by responding, it’s been a waste of time, so until; you exhibit knowledge of the links that start at the OP, peace out.

lol.

You want to make the case that the networks treated Obama's economic team's predictions differently than they treated Bush's economic team's predictions,

but you want to exclude any evidence of the network's treatment of Bush's, to effectively make any direct relevant comparison impossible.

How can you claim bias for A over B, if you disallow evidence about B, claiming it is irrelevant?

That's like saying the average temperature of this decade was warmer than the decade 100 years ago,

but then saying you can't actually mention what the temperature was 100 years ago, for comparison,

because that is irrelevant.