Mhaze,
“Well since I did no such thing I don't know what you're raving about. I suspect that makes two of us. BTW Marcott13 doesn't mention prescession so I don't know what you're raving about.”

Awww, paw widdle diddums couldn’t click the scawy NASA science link that expwaines Pwecession.

"that he added the 20th century data inappropriately.

Aww, paw wittle Mhaze wants to take the big man’s words out of contwext. Aawww, da poor Mhaze can’t undewstand big mans’s words like “temporal resolution of ~120 years” and that the pewiod in discwussion wiff modewn climate has much maw fine wesolution than that.

Awww, paw wittle Mhaze’s swiencey linkey thing don’t dispwove climate theory the way he weally weally wants it twoo.

Well Max has finally gone of the deep end. This always happens when he finally (FINALLY!) realises he's talked himself into a corner.

My work is done.

Mhaze pretends he accepts the science, but it turns out he’s made a simple category error – something equivalent to not knowing how to read the legend in a map!

Mhaze said: “And despite the claims from skepticalsceince and Realclimate and your other go-to gurus, there is no evidence that the recent warming is unprecedented, primarily because the paleo record isn't detailed enough to know what happened in specific 150 yr blocks. Again, that's what the science tells us although the followers-of-science prefer to ignore that."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342819

That didn’t sound right – so we pushed further. Mhaze finally admitted his source was Marcott et al. This study is part 2 of climate research that covers over 20,000 years. It intentionally studies long time frames with longer basic units of time in mind. Other studies cover millions of years in even larger units. Others are more frequent, down at the 30 year level.
http://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-data-monitoring

But Mr “That’s what the science tells us…” can’t be bothered to even exercise High School level English Comprehension – let alone respect science. There’s this thing called context. The context here is longer time spans. That’s Marcott. That’s what Marcott is doing.
Guess what? Other climate studies operate differently. Not all RED on maps is bushfires!

But climate science can and does burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale. His error is as basic as reading RED on one map – a bushfire risk for example – and then insisting RED ALWAYS means bushfire on every map! Even maps of the ocean!

And the guy smugly congratulates himself in his Dunning-Kruger’s syndrome without realizing how utterly retarded this is? I guess that’s the whole point of Dunning-Kruger’s – but man it’s frustrating as hell when you come across it.

What to do about all this? I guess we could take a leaf out of Mhaze’s own book.

“my policy is to mock those who make egregious idiotic errors due to their pomposity”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342791

Pawww wittle Mhaze cawnt even wead a map!

WTF?

If anthropological activity increases greenhouse gasses and that increase has an effect on climate then it is "unprecedented".

"But climate science can and does burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale."

Rubbish. That's almost as funny as your RCP8.5 cock-up.

I've show you a dozen or more papers that show temperatures in the last 12000 were often higher than now. You've not shown a single one that shows anything different - not even MBH98.

So show us a few papers that "burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale" for periods prior to say 1750. (Prediction - he'll move on to some other moronosity or use the WTF? excuse of I'm not going to do the searching for you).

What a bozo!

"Mhaze finally admitted his source was Marcott et al. " That was one of many sources. I've shown you plenty of others over the years. What a bozo!

It occurred that I didn't explain why Max's claims were so funny and that he so misunderstands things that he'd never get it.

He linked to a NOAA page showing how that they reset global averages every 30 years and thought (for want of a more Max-appropriate word) that meant they were looking at paleo-climate in 30 year increments. What a bozo!