Is that so Mhaze?

Gee, what does all this mean then?
Your own words:

"As to what Marcott said about his "projections of future temperature " , I feel like this is a biennial subject since I already educated Max on this a coupla years back. Here's what Marcott finally admitted about his projections after he and the paper were heavily critiqued for including them....

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

"not statistically robust".....I doubt Max will understand that.

One of the reasons I like the Marcott paper is that he was honest enough to own up that he added the 20th century data inappropriately. I think Max will need to look up the 'honest' for a meaning."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342907

Mhaze, when you're in hole - stop digging.
But I guess the question is whether your Dunning-Kruger's is so bad you recognise the general downward slope of the land around you being this thing we call a 'hole'?

Again Max, you raised the 150 year claims and now that you know they're wrong want to pretend it was me. What a bozo!

And just in case you missed it (heaven forbid that you just wanted to avoid it)....

So you are now claiming that ALL findings of paleo-climate is detailed enough to discern temperatures on scales of less than 150 years. Good.
Show me some examples of this from the Holocene.

Mhaze - you know what you said.
Everyone here can see it.
It was dumb.
You were caught off guard by your own big mouth.
Now you're floundering around asking questions that attempt to make you sound smart and pretentious - but we all know what's happening.

It's called a diversion.

If you have a concrete argument you think can save you - actually just say it. Otherwise, I just don't care what you think - you're just a sad old climate denier trying to pretend you have a clue. The fact that you won't honestly admit what happened here just makes you an annoying little gnat of a man. Go away. Bzzzz.

Wow Max your chutzpah is impressive. You first raised the notion of 150 year time scales...."The global rise in temperature that has occurred over the past 150 years is unprecedented and has our fingerprints all over it."

Yet here you are, ON THE SAME THREAD, brazenly denying it.

Then you claimed that the last 150years temperature rises are unprecedented and that the paleo-record proves it. But when asked to provide even a skerrick of evidence for the stupid claim, you run a mile. I know that as a good loyal alarmist you are required to repeat these unproven claims, but claiming they are proven and then failing to find even the slightest evidence is pretty dumb, even for you. Even WTF? earlier on had a crack at backing up the seriously flawed claim. But you can't even do that.

So we've reached the point where you know you've talked yourself into a corner but haven't the balls to admit it. Its therefore hardly worth pursuing the matter. I trust you've learned something, but I somehow doubt it.

“But when asked to provide even a skerrick of evidence for the stupid claim, you run a mile”
See – that’s where you are an annoying little gnat of a man.
I’m not the target you’ve decided to deride. NASA is. The IPCC is. Every National Academy of Science on the planet is. Basically – you’re the one asserting that only YOU follow the science. You’re the one that used Marcott to try and discredit the basic physics behind the Radiative Forcing Equation that the IPCC stands behind. You’re the one that is apparently dubious that the recent rise in RECORDED TEMPERATURES is faster in the last 150 years than what has occurred over the paleoclimate record. You follow the ‘real’ science.
But when push comes to shove, your application of Marcott is a category error! It’s friggin embarrassing to watch!
EVERYONE – Mhaze actually said:

"As to what Marcott said about his "projections of future temperature " , I feel like this is a biennial subject since I already educated Max on this a coupla years back. Here's what Marcott finally admitted about his projections after he and the paper were heavily critiqued for including them....

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

"not statistically robust".....I doubt Max will understand that.

One of the reasons I like the Marcott paper is that he was honest enough to own up that he added the 20th century data inappropriately. I think Max will need to look up the 'honest' for a meaning."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342907

Hi Mhaze - I quoted Skeptical Science to show that yes, indeed, the climate has changed before - they know why - and it’s not responsible for the last 150 years of *unprecedented* warming. We’ve caused this, there’s no natural events or Milankovitch cycles to blame, it’s fast, and it’s serious.

So of course something I quoted first happened to raise the last 150 years. But that was without once DREAMING that you would say something as absurd as this:-

“…primarily because the paleo record isn't detailed enough to know what happened in specific 150 yr blocks.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342819

That’s where you tried to import paleo climate time-chunks over modern climate science. Now that I’ve shown modern climate science measures changes in decades - you’re just pointing to paleoclimate and saying “But that’s the climate scale I like.” You’re like a kid with your fingers in your ears chanting “Not listening, not listening” and you basically bored me off this list for the last week or so.

And then this: “The fact is the science shows that paleo data is insufficiently precise to make any claims about particular 150 year periods. Under those circumstances it is impossible to say whether it is or isn't unprecedented. Show me differently.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342862

Duh! It’s like I’m trying to discuss the nano-scale of computer chips - and you’re the snarky kid in the class saying “Well I can’t see that on my CM rule - and it goes all the way down to millimetres!” Yeah - good on ya. You have fun convincing yourself you’re a hero, fighting all this science - just don’t think anyone else is falling for that.