.

Donald Trump has been immersed in the real estate business all his life. He spent his weekends in New York working in the family real estate business in his teens while attending the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business.

His German grandfather, Friedrich Trump (originally "Trumpf," and sometimes "Drumpf") had been deported and stripped of his Bavarian and German citizenship. He made a modest fortune in the 1890s building hotels and brothels during the Klondike Gold Rush.

When the First World War broke out in 1914, the Trumps kept a low profile as anti-German sentiment was running rife in the US at the time.

Donald’s grandfather died of the Spanish flu when his father, Fred, was 12 years old, leaving a fortune that his widow and son continued to invest in real estate.

Fred proved to be a shrewd, tough businessman, building and managing single-family houses, apartments for war workers during World War II, and more than 27,000 apartments in New York. He died of Alzheimer's disease in 1999 at the age of 93, leaving the Trump Organization in the hands of his son, Donald.

Donald had joined the family real estate conglomeration full-time in 1968 and took over the presidency from his father in 1971.

Companies, corporations, and conglomerates such as the Trump Organization are not and have never been conceived, established, or operated as democracies. Their owners or the appointed representatives of their owners (shareholders) exercise full authoritative, if not authoritarian, rule over their subordinates.

Donald Trump has been steeped in the authoritarian culture that had been inculcated in him by his ancestors and that he, himself, practised all his working life in the family real estate business. He is now 79 years old, and there is no way he will ever change. His character is cast in stone.

Since his election as president of the United States, Donald Trump has exercised authoritarian rule over his subordinates and is methodically deconstructing America’s democracy brick by brick.

.

Hi Banjo,

I thought the old Donald had a bit of the "German" in him, noticed that "fisty salute" he has developed? Reminiscent of another bloke and his salute of an earlier time.

BTW, when was America a democracy? I consider it a Capitalist oligarchy. Our "democracy" as is America's, is like riding a bicycle, it gives the impression that the rider can go anywhere he wants on his machine. Not true, the rider can't go backwards or sideward, only in one direction. Go in that one direction, and everyone is happy. Banjo your thoughts.

.

Dear Paul 1405,

.

Remember Churchill’s speech to the British House of Commons on 11 November 1947 :

« Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. »

Here is the speech :

http://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1947/nov/11/parliament-bill#:~:text=Many%20forms%20of,time%20to%20time

.

This non-American poster's obsession with Donald Trump is sad, to say the least; and the title of the post is nonsense.

Bonger, obviously you’ve never been to a circus. A theatre that brims with surreality, a place reserved for the seemingly impossible to be performed for the expectant audience.
Uncle Donald is a circus act in progress; but he’s not the only member of the troupe is he.

Think carefully on it, and you will realise over half of Americans are supportive of the Donald “Big Top”: Concluding from that reality, maybe Authoritarian can be successfully transposed to “Strong”, even “Chaotic” would be more deserving. A conjuror of a dream world from the seeds of a stark reality, too horrible to contemplate for poor mortal American man: A recognisable and fungible alternative to stark reality, created from the acrid fumes of social media as a sweet tasting panacea for the rejected deplorable of American society; nothing less than a God alternative, a theists God the Democrats murdered with Pagan contempt , expunging all traces of his wisdom and blessings by a true and authentic Authoritarianism.

When we have an official Australian defence organisation trumpeting about a ‘transgender’ person in our Navy (see below), it is quite clear that we have more than enough problems in our own country to worry about than the President of America, who rightly doesn't give a toss about what some wet, busybody, anonymous Australian thinks about him.

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2025-05-19/navy-haven-strength-diversity

Speaking of busybodys titibean
Keep your hateful bigoted nose out of transgender peoples lives.

mikk

Do you represent the transgender cohort? Are you of that persuasion? Can you tell me why I can't stick my nose where I want to stick it? Do I need a permit or permission from you?

Ttbn

You’ve been challenged from the caverns of “Kitchy pop culture”.
You dare to question!
Shame on you as the new recruit!

Thanks, Banjo. Another insightful and timely post.

You've sketched out a trajectory that helps explain not only Trump's leadership style but the institutional mindset he brought with him: one forged in a world where power flows downward without question, and loyalty is prized over truth.

It’s especially concerning when that mindset is applied to the machinery of a democratic state. As you pointed out, corporate structures like the Trump Organisation aren't democracies. They function as authoritarian hierarchies.

Add to that the intellectual malleability and neuroplasticity of a concrete bollard, and it’s not surprising that democratic norms start to look optional.

What we’re witnessing isn’t just personal behaviour - it’s systemic corrosion. Loyalty over law, retribution over restraint, and branding over governance. The fact that this trajectory is still unfolding in his second term makes posts like yours more pertinent than ever.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« This non-American poster's obsession with Donald Trump is sad, to say the least; and the title of the post is nonsense. »
.

It’s good to see you’re fighting fit, ttbn. You had me worried there for a while.

And as the morale seems OK, I guess the rest can’t be too bad either.

Happily, none of us are alone here on OLO :

http://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Harry%20Belafonte,%20London%201977,%20the%20dtreets%20of%20London&mid=CCDEE98BF835C1EE5486CCDEE98BF835C1EE5486&ajaxhist=0

.

Hi Mikk,

ttbn can stick his nose wherever he likes, providing he can get it out of The Donald's rear end first!

I just think its utter hypocracy for it to call out other people as busybodys when thats all the old karen lives for.

mikk,

I didn't think you would have an answer: just another pointless screech, with one of your few words misspelt, and the misuse or lack of understanding of "karen", which applies to middle-aged WOMEN. The derogatory description applies to REAL women, not men pretending to be women; and certainly not to elderly men like me.

Your lack of general knowledge explains why you believe that transgenderism/sexual dysphoria is real, and not a mental condition. The believed ability to change one's sex or gender is a biological/scientific absurdity. The are two sexes (genders if you must use that inappropriate word) - male and female.

You and your mates can call yourselves whatever you want; but 85% of people surveyed do not agree with you. And you should drop the 'victimhood' whine. Nobody "hates" you. Most people don't care about you; they are just not going to help you out with your fantasies.

Live your life they way you want. Just don't expect other people to make you feel better about it. If the transgender nonsense had any truth in it, the subject would not be discussed at all.

While some Australians rabbit on about foreign politicians they can't vote for or against, they ignore the fact (or don’t know) that our own lot have agreed, without a vote in Parliament let alone consultation with the people, to the WHO Pandemic Treaty. The awful Penny Wong, still Foreign Minister, called the sellout of our health sovereignty a “diplomac achievement”.

This will create a global health surveillance dictatorship led by Big Pharma and the WHO. Embraced by the Socialist Albanese government.

Donald Trump, ignorantly maligned in this thread, is against the whole thing, as are the governments of Poland, Slovakia, Paraguay, Israel, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Jamaica, Guatemala , Russia, and Iran. A diverse group of countries, but not the sort of diversity the loony-Left, including Australia, are so fond of trumpeting about.

Thanks for that, ttbn.

There's nothing like a sudden gear shift into pandemic paranoia, Big Pharma conspiracies, and a laundry list of hand-picked regimes to remind us why critical thinking is in such short supply.

Let’s take stock:

- Banjo wrote a measured post on Trump’s authoritarian instincts, backed by history and behavioural patterns.

- You replied by ranting about the Navy recognising a transgender sailor.

- Now you’ve pivoted to a global health dictatorship, name-dropping countries like Russia and Iran as moral allies in a supposed fight for "sovereignty" - conveniently ignoring the irony.

You ridicule others for discussing foreign leaders, yet here you are praising Trump (a foreign leader) because he opposes a treaty you don’t appear to understand beyond YouTube talking points.

Discussion of Trump’s authoritarianism isn’t “obsession” - it’s a recognition of global influence. Australia doesn't exist in a bubble.

When the most powerful democracy on Earth is led by someone with open contempt for democratic norms, everyone has a stake in that. Even anonymous Australians.

Speaking of anonymity and Australianism: if you think either of these qualities are all it would take to leave Trump completely unphased by what's being said in this thread, then you don't know Trump - nor understand narcissistic personality traits, for that matter.

This is a man who:

- Spent days obsessing over Alec Baldwin’s SNL impression;
- Altered a hurricane forecast map with a Sharpie after being corrected;
- Demanded media retractions over crowd size reporting;
- Wasted an entire news cycle insisting his hands weren’t small.

And on it goes.

Anonymous Australians criticising him? If someone showed him this thread, he’d flip his lid. We’d have him distracted for days - furiously posting scrawled-on screenshots and treating each perceived slight like a national emergency.

Trump doesn't need to know who you are. He just needs to know you’re not adoring him.

Trump has a very odd way of speaking some language of 'Trump Speak', part English, part Incoherent, reminiscent of an earlier time in Australia with 'Joh Speak'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phsU1vVHOQI

Bonger 1405

Fail…

Straight off the bat, your proffered linguistic expert doesn’t cut the mustard…he’s a black BLM ring in.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

Of the modern nation-states, the USA is the oldest democracy in the world, founded in 1789. It was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016.

As the Trump revolution continues its onslaught, it will probably be further declassified in 2026 to a “hybrid regime” (government that applies pressure on political opposition, non-independent judiciary, corruption, harassment and pressure of the media, anaemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies, and issues in the functioning of governance).

The next step down is the bottom category, the “authoritarian regime” (countries where political pluralism is severely limited. Absolute monarchies or dictatorships that may have some conventional institutions of democracy but with meagre significance, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, elections are not fair (including sham elections), the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime, the judiciary is not independent, and censorship and suppression of governmental criticism are commonplace).

About 40% of the countries in the world are authoritarian, 38% are flawed democracies, 16% are hybrid regimes and 6% are full democracies.

Australia has been a full democracy since federation in 1901.

Our top trading partners in 2025 are :

1. China – A$ 300 billion
2. Japan – A$ 150 billion
3. European Union – A$ 110 billion
4. United States – A$ 88 billion

We depend heavily on the United States, not only for our trade but also for our defence, but can we, and should we ? That is the question.

There are ominous signs that the Trump revolution of “America First” could metamorphose into “America Only” if Trump so decides.

The incoming U.S. Under Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby declared in his testimony on Capitol Hill, he might not support America’s commitments to send Australia three to five Virginia-class submarines as it would diminish America’s undersea capabilities.

The Trumpian revolution in the U.S. is an existentially determining factor of the future of Australia.

Better to follow events closely, ttbn. It is far more important than you think.

.

Hi Banjo,

Sorry to be a smarty pants, but I do believe Iceland is the worlds oldest "democracy", having established a peoples parliament as early as 930AD, I suppose they had nothing better to do during those long Artic nights. As of May 23rd 2025 the Americans are yet to establish a true democracy, of government of the people, for the people, by the people, I just poked my head out the window and checked again, nope, those Yanks are still defiantly a Capitalist oligarchy.

As for Winston and his oft quoted democracy, why then when he was PM of Britain, the country also operated as a Capitalist oligarchy and not a democracy? If democracy is a donkey, and autocracy is a horse, then we are a mule, neither donkey or horse. That's not to say the mule is any less desirable than either the donkey or the horse, in fact it may be an improvement on both.

.

Dear Paul 1405,

.

Why is Iceland not considered the oldest democracy of the modern nation-states ?

Because for most of its history, Iceland was controlled by the Kingdom of Denmark. While they could make some decisions during the Althing they were not an independent nation. In fact, Denmark stopped the Althing in 1800. In 1845, it started again in Reykavik.

As a matter of fact I have fond personal memories of Iceland that go back to my miss-spent youth. A mate of mine and I spent three months in Iceland working on fishing trawlers catching cod fish.

I worked on the Ingólfr Arnarson (the name of the first Norse settler of Iceland). It was the oldest ship in the fleet. The Icelanders wouldn't work on it because it had none of the modern conveniences - no protections, no showers, etc. - but we had a lucky captain and caught a lot of fish !

It was very cold, very dangerous, with very rough weather and daylight for only about four hours a day.

We must have been mad, but we somehow managed to survive.

Those were the days my friend. We thought they'd never end ...

.

"I didn't think you would have an answer: just another pointless screech, with one of your few words misspelt, and the misuse or lack of understanding of "karen", which applies to middle-aged WOMEN. The derogatory description applies to REAL women, not men pretending to be women; and certainly not to elderly men like me."

Exactly what a true karen would say.

I dont give a stuff about trans people. That is the point. Live and let live.
Leave other people alone or you might find they want to interfere in your life. What possible impact could trans people have on an elderly man like you? Its just another excuse to be a bigoted karen and have a whiney little whinge like all right wing snowflakes.

Well cut it out old man you are needlessly hurting people with your hatred and you will only cause more hate, probably directed at you and your ilk.
Give out hate expect it to be returned.

Hi Banjo,

Are you convinced that America and Australia for that matter, are true democracies? Like communism, can a "democracy" only exist in some hybrid form. Democracy is a complex beast, very hard to define. The fact we empower leaders to make decisions on our behalf detracts from the principles of a true democracy. I've looked up democracy as defined by the Parliament of Australia, if anyone should know, they should. According to the P of A;

Democracy means ‘rule by the people’. The word comes from the ancient Greek words ‘demos’ (the people) and ‘kratos’ (to rule). Seems reasonable. I'm people, but I don't feel that I am ruling. I believe some other people (The political class) have taken that job from me, and millions of others.

The P of A goes on to say;

There are five key values of democracy:

(1) Respect for individuals and their right to make their own choices.
(2) Tolerance of differences and opposing ideas.
(3) Equity—valuing all people and supporting them to reach their full potential.
(4) Each person has freedom of speech, association, movement and freedom of belief.
(5) Justice—treating everyone fairly, in society and in court.

The fives key values, seem reasonable and somewhat noble, but I think our "democracy", like America has failed all five principles to some degree. Sometimes for very good practical reasons, sometimes more through human failure. I'm not opposed to our form of "democracy", I just think it is not as pure as we like to kid ourselves it is. What is your opinion?

Lastly; "Hamster you are free not to turn the wheel, but just keep turning the wheel."

.

Dear Paul,

.

You ask :

« Are you convinced that America and Australia for that matter, are true democracies? Like communism, can a "democracy" only exist in some hybrid form ? »
.

The Economist declassified the US from a “full democracy to a “flawed democracy” in 2016 based on its definition of those two categories (consultable on its website). That seems logical, and I see no reason to contest it.

As for Australia, King Charles II inherited the position as our head of state following the decease of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. That has nothing to do with democracy. It has to do with monarchy. Australia was established as a constitutional monarchy in 1901. Political power is derived from the monarch within the parameters of the constitution. The constitution outlines the rights and responsibilities of both the monarch and the democratically elected government.

The Economist ranks Australia as a “full democracy” based on what it considers to be the defining elements of a democratic government. The fact that Australia’s form of government is that of a constitutional monarchy is not considered to have any significant effect on that.

While I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of what may be considered a “full democracy”, I am inclined to agree that the term is not appropriate, stricto sensu, in respect of constitutional monarchies such as Australia.

As regards the five countries whose official form of government is communist — China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam — I understand they all have authoritarian governments.

.

"It [the USA] was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016."

Gee I wonder what happened in 2016. Oh that's right... the wrong person (at least as far as the leftist Economist is concerned) got elected.

For many people, democracy is only democratic when the people they support and the policies they support get elected. If the wrong people get elected; if the wrong policies get supported, then they assume it can't be a democracy. For those who purport to be anti-authoritarian, if only everyone agreed with me then we'd have a 'proper' democracy.
The self-styled anti-authoritarian becomes the very persona of an authoritarian. and they'll never recognise it.

Despite the wrong person winning, the US is indeed a democracy. As is Australia and Britain and (for now) France and Germany. And South Korea and Japan. These are places where the rulers are subject to the people and are subject to the law. Where governmnets change based on the will of the people and without resort to arms.

Are they perfect democracies? No. No such thing has ever existed or will ever exist. A gold bar is a gold bar even when its not 100% gold.

Some people look at the Mona Lisa and see the beauty. Others see the cracks in the paint.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« "It [the USA] was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016."

Gee I wonder what happened in 2016. Oh, that's right... the wrong person (at least as far as the leftist Economist is concerned) got elected. »
.

America’s downgrade to flawed-democracy status coincided with the election of Donald Trump, but the trend was in motion years before he assumed office, mhaze. He was not the initial cause of it. He has simply accelerated the movement.

A Pew Research survey on U.S. democracy found that more than 80% of respondents believed that most political figures “don’t care” about “what people like me think”.

The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. Just 40% of moderates said that there was a party in America that represented their opinions.

It was America’s political culture and the functioning of its government that posed problems. America scored poorly on political polarisation and general support for democracy. Pew Research found that more than a quarter of Americans thought that an autocracy — in which a leader could bypass Congress and the courts — would be a somewhat or very good form of government.

Trump seems to fit the bill for that.

As for The Economist, mhaze, it is not “leftist”. If anything, it is liberal — though it prides itself on being neither left nor right but independent. It is owned by the Economist Group, a British multinational media company. The principal shareholders are the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Layton, and Agnelli families. Subscriptions, advertising, and sponsored content generate its revenue.

The current editor is Zanny Minton Beddoes who describes herself as “an English liberal to my core”, and adds, speaking of the Group :

« Our roots are liberal in the classical sense. We were founded in 1843 and have championed free markets, open societies and individual liberties ever since. We believe these are the foundations on which human progress thrives ».

.

Hi Banjo,

You said; "I am inclined to agree that the term (full democracy) is not appropriate, stricto sensu, in respect of constitutional monarchies such as Australia." I agree, I see Australia as a pseudo democracy or a hybrid democracy, which in itself is not a bad thing. In a modern society the concept of a "full democracy" in its purest sense cannot work for practical reasons, the number of people involved, and time needed to determine the outcome of an issue, these thing alone are impractical.

Even in the most basic of societies "rule by the people" (democracy) is not practical. Always some person with a stronger personality, or a stronger will, and sometime generally more knowledgeable than the majority, and more assertive, that person might be called the Chief. That person by nature becomes the final decision maker, he may take council from others, generally an elite group of advisers, but in the end its he who makes the final decisions.

Communism is democratic, so the Communists will tell you. As they believe Communism is the one and only system of government that is desirable, and all others are superfluous, irrelevant and unnecessary. And they will tell you democracy functions perfectly well under Communism, with alternate views and opinions contained with the one party system. There was no one more democratic that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini etc, so they would say. Its just their concept of democracy was a little bit different from yours and mine.

1. The Economist.... any number of bodies that track such things rate The Economist as 'Left Leaning' eg Ad Fontes Media , AllSides.com

That someone of the left thinks it is centrist is hardly surprising.

2. "The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. "

How does that make a country 'not democratic'. I'd venture that there's not a country on earth where the people think their leaders are acting in their interests.

All you are doing is saying that you don't want to beleive the US is democratic and then digging up ludicrous unrelated data that purports to justify your fondest held beliefs.

But here's a thought to keep you awake at night.... since the re-election of Trump the polls show that the number of USians thinking the country is on the right track has increased. What a disaster, eh? The devil incarnate is, using your criteria, making the US MORE democratic!!

The problem here is that you haven't and probably can't give a definition of democracy but instead juts say that whatever the US (really Trump) does is anti-democratic and then pretend those criteria don't apply elsewhere

mhaze,

For the second time in this thread, you’re responding to a version of the argument that no one actually made.

Banjo didn’t claim that a drop in public trust alone makes a country “not democratic.” He pointed to multiple indicators used by respected institutions like Pew and The Economist - declining institutional confidence, increased political polarisation, and a rising openness to autocracy among voters - all of which were happening before Trump took office and have only accelerated since.

Rather than engage with those trends, you reframed his comment as just another anti-Trump gripe. That’s become a bit of a reflex, it seems - flatten every critique of democratic backsliding into “you just don’t like who won.”

As for The Economist, it’s telling that you ignored its stated methodology and track record in favour of simply labelling it “left-leaning.” That’s quite a pivot from your own position a while back:

“Personally I try to never evaluate the message based upon the messenger. I prefer to look at the actual data.”
(forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10452#362839)

That’s a good principle - worth sticking to.

And while we’re on definitions, it’s ironic to see you demand one for democracy while brushing aside the frameworks already offered - including the Economist’s own model and the five principles cited earlier from the Australian Parliament.

If your only metric for whether a country is a democracy is “people can still vote,” you’re missing the entire point of the conversation - and unintentionally confirming it.

And as for your claim that growing public satisfaction in Trump’s second term proves things are improving - that’s a textbook appeal to popularity. Public opinion isn’t the same thing as democratic integrity. If it were, countries like Russia or Hungary would rank as model democracies.

Democratic health is measured by how power is constrained, how rights are protected, and how institutions function - especially when leaders are popular. Conflating approval with legitimacy is how democracies rot while smiling crowds cheer.

Still here John? I thought you'd skedaddled after the Marcott debacle.

"Banjo didn’t claim that a drop in public trust alone makes a country “not democratic.” "

Kindly show where I said he did. Or not. Oh, and please don't go down the 'implied it' road again.

Banjo asserted that people believing the leaders weren't working in their interests was a sign of the nation being less democratic..."The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. Just 40% of moderates said that there was a party in America that represented their opinions."

I merely pointed out that that wasn't a valid way to evaluate whether a nation was undemocratic. I also pointed out that if that was Banjo's criteria, then the US was becoming more democratic under Trump. Sorry if the logic of that by-passed you.

"Democratic health is measured by how power is constrained"

The issue isn't how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all. I'll readily agree that democracy in most parts of the world is under pressure from the authoritarian left, but that doesn't mean those places aren't democracies still. There will come a tipping point where they will cease to be democracies (eg if Germany bans the AfD or the UK bans Reform or the US judiciary overthrows the Executive) but none have reached that point yet.

Still here, mhaze?

You’re proving to be quite the case study in how online debate works when memory’s short but logs are long.

//I thought you’d skedaddled after the Marcott debacle.//

No, my comment is still the last one in that thread, right here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398847

It was you who skedaddled, after being caught misrepresenting Marcott for a second time - not to return for another nine days. This kind of narrative-reversal-by-projection isn’t clever. It’s strategically dishonest, and now you’re running the same playbook here: misrepresent what was said, avoid the evidence, then scold others for arguing against the thing you misrepresented.

//Kindly show where I said Banjo thinks trust alone defines democracy.//

I knew this one was coming. So, here's a response I prepared earlier:

You clearly framed his reference to public opinion as if it invalidated his broader point, and claimed he just didn’t want to believe the US is democratic.

More projection.

You also keep shifting between two entirely different questions:

Is the US still a democracy?
Is it a healthy democracy?

They’re not the same, and pretending that no meaningful distinction exists - while citing approval polls and brushing off institutional decline - only reinforces the concerns Banjo raised in the first place.

You asked for a definition of democracy, got several (from The Economist, the Parliament of Australia, and others), then ignored them. It's like a game of Whack-a-Mole with you.

As for your “tipping point” theory - that democracy only ends if parties are banned or courts overthrow executives - that’s not a serious metric. Democracies rarely collapse in a single moment. They rot from within: through norm-breaking, erosion of checks, creeping impunity, and the slow replacement of accountability with tribal applause.

Which is why, every time you try to disprove the argument, you end up illustrating it.

Incidentally, have you had a chance to read Neukom et al. yet? Or is it still more fun pretending the conversation ended when things got uncomfortable for you?

Trumpster,

I never took you to be a supporter of democracy, just the opposite. Your folk hero the Dangerous Doctor Donald is looking for ways to make himself 'Dictator For Life'. I'm sure you would agree with that situation. They are now calling the dumb cluck, TACO Donald, meaning 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. His tariff policy, if you can call it a "policy", was a total chaotic shambles. It was good to see China stand up to the bumbling fool. NOW Elon Musk has given Donald the flick. Seems Trump 2.0 is as crazy as Trump version 1.

"after being caught misrepresenting Marcott for a second time -"

Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.

"You also keep shifting between two entirely different questions:

Is the US still a democracy?
Is it a healthy democracy?"

Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.

I specifically wrote..."The issue isn't how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all". After I've pointed out that there's a difference between the two you assert that I don't recognise there's a difference between the two. Daft.

"that democracy only ends if parties are banned or courts overthrow executives"

Your ability (or disability) to assert that I've said things I never said is astounding. I never said its the only way democracy ends, just that at the moment this is the way some current democracies might end. I suspect you won't understand that. Perhaps I should give you a history lesson regarding the overthrow of democracies in Athens and Rome, but alas you'd assert that I implied something different.

"have you had a chance to read Neukom et al. yet?"

I read Neukom years ago and I said I show you where you got it wrong but only after you demonstrated that you understood where you got Marcott wrong. One lesson at a time for the slow learners

mhaze,

You’ve perfected a peculiar strategy: say something demonstrably false with absolute confidence, dismiss the correction with mockery, then count on others either not checking or not caring enough to challenge you.

//Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.//

That’s not a rebuttal - it’s a reflex. If I’ve “rewritten history,” you’re welcome to cite a post that contradicts what I said. The link is right there. Still waiting.

//The issue isn't how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all.//

No - I said you were conflating the two, not that you didn’t know the difference. You acknowledge the distinction, but then respond to concerns about democratic health by shifting the goalposts to democratic status, as if survival alone proves functionality. That’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand - and exactly the kind of erosion Banjo was highlighting.

//I never said it's the only way democracy ends...//

You didn’t need to. Framing only the most extreme collapse scenarios while ignoring slow institutional decay is a common tactic to make genuine concern look hysterical. But democracies almost never die in one stroke. They rot - through norm-breaking, hollowed-out institutions, and voter disillusionment. The kind you keep brushing off.

//I read Neukom years ago and said I’d show you where you got it wrong...//

No - you read me referencing it, then pretended you’d already engaged with it while attaching a condition you knew would be wrong of me to meet - because your claim about Marcott was false and Neukom confirmed it. You didn’t even know about Neukom until I mentioned it, because your sources don’t mention it.

You haven’t shown I got Marcott wrong. You ignored the clarification, moved the goalposts, vanished from the thread, and now you’re rewriting the timeline.

If you had a rebuttal to Neukom, you’d have posted it by now. You haven’t - because you can’t.

"If I’ve “rewritten history,” you’re welcome to cite a post that contradicts what I said"

I don't need to. Anyone who is interested can go back and read the thread, the majority of which was you trying to find a way to back out of your Marcott error. Read the thread - see how you got it wrong.

"You acknowledge the distinction, but then respond to concerns about democratic health by shifting the goalposts to democratic status, "

Oh dear John. You're the one who first started talking about the health of a democracy when the thread was about the demise of democracy. I pointed out that you'd missed the point and we are now in one of those multi-post exercises you indulge in to try to hide the original error. Not playing.

Great idea, mhaze. Let’s.

//Anyone who is interested can go back and read the thread…//

I said: “The current rate of warming… is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to… Marcott et al. (2013); Neukom et al. (2019).”
You misrepresented Marcott, claiming it ruled out such comparisons. I pointed out its resolution limitations - and cited Neukom, which confirms the modern spike.

You dodged Neukom completely, then wrote:
“I'll consider spending time to explain why you got [Neukom] just as wrong… after you admit you got Marcott completely arse-about.”

A transparent dodge. You hadn't read Neukom - and needed a pretext to avoid engaging with a paper that undermined your claim. You left the thread for nine days, and now you’re pretending I did.

You’ve not only rewritten history - you’ve linked to the very thread that proves it.

On democracy, the pattern’s the same: you said “the issue isn’t how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all” - then tried to use that framing to dismiss concerns about declining democratic health. You acknowledged the distinction, but conflated it in argument.

You also claimed I made that distinction first. I didn’t. I was responding to Banjo, who had already raised the issue of democratic erosion.

So again - misrepresent, deflect, then accuse others of the tactic you just used.

It’s all there in black and white.

Marcott specifically said that his findings couldn't be used to say the current warming is faster than other periods. You claimed otherwise and then when I pointed out your error, spent who knows how many posts trying to find a way to dig yourself out of that particular hole. Fin.

You were the first to talk about "Democratic health" and when I pointed out that that wasn't what the post was about, you've spent who knows how many posts trying to find a way to dig yourself out of that particular hole. Fin.

If we can move on from JD's fumbling of the language and misunderstanding of the thread, it remains a fact that the US democracy, while under threat from all sorts of leftist authoritarians is very much in good hands and is recovering from the deprivations of the three Obama terms (Biden was just an obama puppet). Equally while democracy is under threat in Europe because of the rising popularity of the right and the fear from the left that they'll lose power and wealth, democratic mechanisms and the realisation that all the alternatives are unacceptable, has resulted in the democracies being somewhat reinforced - although that could change in a thrice.

mhaze,

You call it a “hole,” but the only person who’s fallen into one here is you.

Marcott et al. stated their reconstruction couldn’t resolve sub-century changes, not that current warming couldn’t be compared in context. That’s why I cited Neukom et al., which does provide that shorter-term resolution. You ignored that study completely, then tacked on a condition to avoid addressing it. That’s not a correction - it’s evasion.

As for the democracy point:
Banjo raised the issue of democratic decline. I responded to that - specifically referencing institutional erosion, not regime collapse. You then reframed the entire issue as a binary question of whether the U.S. is “a democracy or not,” as if that alone settles the debate.

You’ve now pivoted again - this time from cherry-picking studies you haven’t read to asserting that Biden was “just an Obama puppet” and that democracy is only under threat from “leftist authoritarians.”

That last part speaks volumes.

When facts get uncomfortable, you retreat to political fan fiction. You’ve gone from misquoting scientific studies to trying to bury legitimate concerns under vague threats from imaginary Marxist overlords.

None of this changes the record.

You misrepresented Marcott. You dodged Neukom. You reframed the democracy debate. And now, once again, you’ve finished a post without offering a single link, source, or direct rebuttal.

But please - keep telling people to go read the thread. It’ll do just fine.

"You misrepresented Marcott."

I quoted extensively from him. Full quotes of his Q and A.

You'd better sit down to read this bit... just because I showed that what he said was different to what you hoped he said, doesn't mean his words were being mispresented. Just wanting it to be true, JD, doesn't make it true.

mhaze,

Quoting a source isn’t the same as representing it accurately. Misrepresentation doesn’t require fabrication - it can come from selective emphasis, missing context, or framing a clarification as a contradiction.

You cited Marcott’s Q&A as if it refuted my point. It didn’t. It explained the resolution limitations of that particular study - exactly why I also cited Neukom et al., which you’ve dodged ever since. You’re still pretending this was about a single study being definitive, when I made it clear from the start that it wasn’t.

That’s what misrepresentation means here - not that you made up a quote, but that you distorted its meaning to score a point.

Try again.

You said "The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions (e.g. Marcott et al., 2013...."

Marcott said the exact opposite ie that his study said no such thing and the data was incapable of showing any such thing.

Until you're prepared to accept and reconcile your views to that fact, its not worth discussing the issue with you.

Indeed I did, mhaze.

//You said "The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions (e.g. Marcott et al., 2013...."//

Correct - and if you read that sentence in full, you’ll see I cited multiple reconstructions, not Marcott alone. That’s why the sentence says “e.g. Marcott et al., 2013; Neukom et al., 2019” - the latter being the one that directly addresses decadal-scale warming rates. Ignoring Neukom doesn’t make it disappear.

//Marcott said the exact opposite ie that his study said no such thing and the data was incapable of showing any such thing.//

Once again, that’s a distortion. Marcott said his study couldn’t resolve rate-of-change within century-long windows due to proxy resolution. That’s not the same as saying the recent rate isn’t unprecedented - it’s saying his study isn’t designed to detect that. Which is why I also referenced Neukom et al.

You’re mistaking limitations in data resolution for a refutation of the conclusion. They’re not the same.

//Until you're prepared to accept and reconcile your views to that fact, it’s not worth discussing the issue with you.//

You’re demanding I “reconcile” with a position I haven’t taken.

I didn’t claim Marcott alone proves modern warming is unprecedented. I claimed that recent peer-reviewed reconstructions do - and cited Marcott for long-term context and Neukom for rate clarity.

You’ve avoided one and distorted the other, then tried to shut the discussion down with a false precondition. That’s not debate, it’s misdirection.

Back in your box, mhaze.

You said Marcott's paper, among others, proved the current warming is unprecedented. Marcott said his paper didn't said such a thing and his data couldn't prove such a thing. I know you want to pretend you didn't monumentally screw this up but alas....

mhaze,

You keep repeating this as though it strengthens your point, but let’s clear it up - again:

I didn’t claim that Marcott’s data alone proves current warming is unprecedented in rate. I said it contributes to the picture - and I explicitly referenced Neukom et al. (2019) alongside it for exactly that reason.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398757
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398761
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398770

Marcott’s own clarification acknowledges his study’s limited resolution, which makes direct sub-century rate comparisons difficult - not impossible, and certainly not meaningless. That’s why the phrase you keep quoting says:

"…the records have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century…”

That’s a specific caveat, not a retraction of the broader conclusion that modern warming lies outside the Holocene norm.

And again: Neukom et al., which you’ve dodged every step of the way, does include the high-resolution data needed - and it does conclude that modern warming is unprecedented in both rate and spatial consistency over the last 2,000 years.

So no, there’s no “monumental screw-up” - except maybe the one where you keep pretending this has never been addressed, while offering no rebuttal to the actual evidence that was provided.

If you truly had a counterpoint to Neukom, you'd have posted it. Instead, you're stuck quoting a misreading of Marcott as if it's a gotcha - and hoping everyone else forgets the second paper was ever mentioned.

Like I said, back in your box...

"not a retraction of the broader conclusion that modern warming lies outside the Holocene norm."

That's ALSO wrong.

Marcott shows that the current average global temperature was higher for 25% of the past 12000 yrs. That is, during the c. 12000 yrs of the Holocene, temperatures were higher than the present for c.3000 yrs. Current temperatures sit right in the Holocene norm.

And there's any number of papers that reach the same conclusion

mhaze,

You're not just misrepresenting Marcott anymore, you're now contradicting the very study you pretend to quote.

//Marcott shows that the current average global temperature was higher for 25% of the past 12,000 yrs./

No. What Marcott actually said was that as of 2000–2009, temperatures hadn’t yet exceeded early Holocene peaks, but were on track to do so within decades. That’s not “right in the Holocene norm.” That’s a flashing red warning.

And crucially, you’re still dodging the actual point: rate.

Marcott et al. (2013) - and their follow-up Q&A - made one thing clear: their resolution smooths out short-term spikes, which is why they avoided commenting on sub-century rates. That’s not a retraction of unprecedented change - t’s a limitation of their dataset.

That’s exactly why I cited Neukom et al. (2019) - a higher-resolution, multi-proxy reconstruction that does resolve modern trends, concluding:

“The warmest 51-year period over the past two millennia occurred during the late 20th century.”

You’ve never addressed that. You’ve never posted these mythical “other papers” you claim exist. And now, you’re trying to turn a study’s cautious framing into a smoking gun, hoping no one clicks the link or knows the literature.

This isn’t just evasion anymore. It’s fraud by footnote.

Try again.

Trumpster,

You must be beside yourself with grief at the very public divorce of Donald and Elon, no more kissy, kissy, ha, ha. Musk wants the Epstein files about Trump opened, now that would be some juicy reading. Trump says Musk is a "nut case",because he said Trumps "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a disaster for America. What's your opinion?

"What Marcott actually said was that as of 2000–2009, temperatures hadn’t yet exceeded early Holocene peaks, but were on track to do so within decades. "

And then Marcott clarified it in the Q and A by pointing out that his projections weren't part of his analysis, weren't robust and shouldn't be relied upon.

Its very true that if the most extreme of the model projections for 2100 turn out to be true then temps in 2100 will exceed all Holocene levels. But those models can't be relied on.

But we are talking about the here and now. And here and now, world temperatures are lower than they were for 25% of the Holocene.

mhaze,

Let’s not kid ourselves - this isn’t about facts anymore. You're in pure damage control mode. You once leaned on Marcott to support your point:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10434#362327

Then you read what it actually said. Now you’re claiming the Q&A “clarifies” that the core finding shouldn’t be trusted. That’s not clarification. That’s retreat.

Marcott never retracted his conclusions. He noted that his study alone couldn’t resolve sub-century rates of warming - something I stated from the outset. You’ve twisted that into a blanket dismissal, while ignoring higher-resolution studies like Neukom et al. that confirm the modern spike is unprecedented.

You now fall back to, “Well, right now it’s still cooler than some parts of the Holocene.” But that’s not what was argued. The issue is rate. And the rate today is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years - which Marcott’s trajectory supports and Neukom explicitly confirms.

So no, this isn’t me “fumbling” anything. It’s you abandoning a source you once misunderstood, doubling down on that misreading, and then pretending everyone else is confused.

The only thing unprecedented here is your refusal to concede a point - no matter how many times your framing breaks down.

"You once leaned on Marcott to support your point:"

You introduced Marcott to the discussion. I merely quoted Marcott himself to show you'd utterly misunderstood his paper.

"Now you’re claiming the Q&A “clarifies” that the core finding shouldn’t be trusted."

No Marcott said that. Did you read it? I linked to it and quoted extensively. Was it too hard for you?

"something I stated from the outset. "

Well that's a straight up fabrication. Here's what you originally claimed..."The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, "
Everything since then is you trying to find a way to hide your error once I'd pointed out what Marcott actually said.

"And the rate today is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years - which Marcott’s trajectory supports and Neukom explicitly confirms."

Well Neukom only talks about the last 2000 years!! Perhaps I should educate you on that paper as well, but only after you've fully absorbed your embarrassment over Marcott.

But I'm done with this. Clearly you are either incapable of understanding your error or incapable of acknowledging your error. Either way, further elucidation seems futile.

Paul,

"Musk wants the Epstein files about Trump opened, "

Well he's withdrawn that tweet.

Perhaps Trump and Musk will reconcile.... Oh sorry, I forgot you don't know what that word means.

Not in the instance I was referring to, mhaze.

//You introduced Marcott to the discussion.//

Which I even linked to. Here it is again: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10434#362327

In that post, you leaned on Marcott to support your argument. Only after I later cited it - with its resolution limitations already acknowledged - did you realise it wasn’t the trump card you thought it was. That’s when the Q&A suddenly became your lifeline.

Now you’re claiming it "clarifies" that the core findings shouldn’t be trusted - even though Marcott himself never retracted them, and nothing in the Q&A undermines the main conclusion.

As for Neukom: yes, it focuses on the past 2,000 years - at a higher resolution than Marcott - which is precisely why I cited both. Neukom confirms the recent warming spike is unprecedented. You’ve ignored it across every post.

Also, let’s be clear: I never said Marcott alone could resolve decadal rates. I acknowledged that from the outset. What I said - and still say - is that its long-term context, paired with Neukom’s high-resolution detail, shows the modern rate is unmatched in millennia.

You’re not “done” because this isn’t worth addressing - you’re done because you got caught waving around a study you misunderstood, and now you can’t backtrack without admitting it.

This isn’t a debate anymore. It’s a desperate scrounge around for something - anything - to cover up your embarrassing blunder.

Try again...

mhaze,

Since I enjoy frustrating attempts to obfuscate and gaslight, I’m going to step through your Marcott bungle and squirm as succinctly as possible:

1. You claimed there was “no evidence that the rate of change in temperatures over the past 170 years is any different to previous periods of change.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398755

2. I disproved this by citing both Marcott and Neukom as just two examples of research contradicting your claim (there’s more I’m still waiting to get to.)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398757

3. You then misrepresented Marcott (and ignored Neukom) by conflating their honest caveat with a disavowal they never made.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398760

4. I pointed this out.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398761

5. You then repeated your claim while continuing to ignore Neukom until you eventually fled the scene.

Since then, it’s been: step 3, step 4, repeat.

Only recently did you work up the nerve to skim Neukom - just long enough to dismiss it on the grounds that it “only” covers 2,000 years.

You treat Neukom’s 2000-year scope like a disqualifier - as if every paper needs to do everything. That’s not how scientific inference works.

Marcott gives us the long-term baseline. Neukom zooms in where it counts the most. Together, they paint a clear picture. Ignoring one because it doesn’t include the other’s domain is like claiming a microscope is useless because it can’t see the horizon.

As an amateur applying motivated reasoning only, you mistake methodological scope for an excuse to dismiss anything that contradicts you. You misunderstood Marcott, ignored Neukom, retreated when challenged, and now you’re hoping no one notices that you’re still dodging the central point:

Your “no evidence” claim didn’t survive first contact with the science. And the only thing moving faster than today’s warming rate... is your retreat from ever admitting that.

//Perhaps I should educate you on that paper as well…//

Yes, let’s pretend your 2000-year blunder was just a warm-up, and that your sudden “conditions” aren’t yet another smokescreen to avoid engaging with a paper you stopped skimming the moment you found what you thought was reason enough to dismiss it.

Worrying signs for democracy in America as the Fuhrer in Washington has ordered his personal storm troopers to stop protests in Los Angeles. The Fuhrer has ordered the rounding up on the streets of presumed "illegals" by his secret agents. Does this remind you of another place, another time and another despot!

Trumpster,

"Musk wants the Epstein files about Trump opened, "

Well he's withdrawn that tweet.

Musk let the cat out of the bag, no denying that, and a hundred withdrawals makes no difference. If Dirty Old Donald has nothing to hide then make the Epstein files public. Given Trump's reputation, I'm sure there would be juicy reading to be had! Remember the Randy Price Andy saga, he should have been locked up!

Trumpster, with The Donald I think you have backed a very sick horse!

"That’s when the Q&A suddenly became your lifeline."

I mentioned the Q&A in the post you referred to. It was always about the supplementary notes and the Q&A where they were presented. Marcott's original paper doesn't talk about the rapidity of warming. That was all in the Q&A.

The original paper talked about the resolution of the data being on average 160years and the Q&A draws the conclusion, which appears to be beyond your level of understanding, that given the 160 year period its impossible to conclude the recent warming is unprecedented.

Everything you've written since is about you trying to hide your misunderstanding. But putting words in Marcott's mouth is pretty silly.

Re Neukom , you said it covered 11000 years. I merely corrected yet another error.

"Does this remind you of another place, another time and another despot!"

Well Obama did it also but I wouldn't hold that against him. Every president has.

BTW Albo deported 90 illegals last year. Is he a despot?

BTW I noticed the latest aboriginal defect from the Greens (Dorinda Cox ) is saying they are racists. I presume you are disowning your support for them?

mhaze,

It seems your penchant for revisionism and misconstruing remains unaffected even after the veil of your obfuscation is lifted.

//I mentioned the Q&A in the post you referred to.//

No, you didn’t.

You mentioned Marcott (2013) as if it alone backed your claim. You didn’t cite the Q&A until after I pointed out you were misreading the paper - and even then, only to backpedal and reframe. The idea that your reliance on the Q&A was there from the start is revisionist history.

//Marcott’s original paper doesn’t talk about the rapidity of warming. That was all in the Q&A.//

False.

The original Science article compares modern warming trajectories with Holocene trends and concludes the recent spike diverges markedly. It states: “Global temperatures are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene.” The context and trajectory are discussed - just not the exact rate over a single century, which the authors make clear is due to proxy resolution, not uncertainty about the broader trend.

//The original paper talked about the resolution of the data being on average 160 years…//

Closer to 120, actually, which you’d know if you read it.

Either way, this doesn’t mean the study’s conclusions about modern divergence are invalid - it just means short-term rates need to be corroborated by higher - resolution reconstructions. That’s exactly why I cited Neukom (2019), which you ignored for multiple replies before hurriedly dismissing on scope.

//Everything you’ve written since is about you trying to hide your misunderstanding.//

No, everything I’ve written has consistently clarified exactly what Marcott said, why I cited it, and how you’ve tried to twist it into saying something it never did. You didn’t correct a misunderstanding. You created one.

//Re Neukom, you said it covered 11,000 years. I merely corrected yet another error.//

Another strawman. I’ve never claimed Neukom covered the full Holocene.

So again: you misunderstood Marcott, then leaned on an out-of-context Q&A once it was clear the paper contradicted you. You ignored Neukom entirely until forced to acknowledge it, then dismissed it based on a scope it never claimed to have.

Try again.

"//The original paper talked about the resolution of the data being on average 160 years…//

Closer to 120, actually, which you’d know if you read it."

From the Marcott paper....

"The average sampling resolution of the datasets is 160 years,"

FFS

Trumpster,

Nothing to say on the Epstein files about Trump being made public! Why is The Donald insisting they be kept closed, something to hide maybe?

I don't believe America is a true democracy. Trump is acting without a request being made by the Governor of California. Not since Nixon has a President acted this way without a request being made.

"Albo deported 90 illegals last year." After due process has taken place. Unlike Trump who simply sends in his "Gestapo" goons to grab people off the streets. Then deport them to a hell hole in South America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpbTw-Q3u8

Dorinda Cox is free to say what she likes. "I (Trumpster) presume you are disowning your support for them?" Just as you are supporting Dirty Donald after Elon Muck let the cat out of the bag with the Epstein files.

mhaze,

Yes, the average sampling resolution of the raw datasets is ~160 years. But the reconstruction itself - the stacked global time series Marcott used to compare trends - has a temporal resolution of ~120 years, as noted in multiple summaries of the paper (including NOAA's official overview).

You’re quoting the input. I was referring to the output. FFS indeed.

But thanks for the outburst - it saves me having to demonstrate, yet again, that you don't understand the difference between proxy sampling intervals and the resolution of the final reconstruction. Which, to be honest, explains a lot about the rest of your commentary.

Still waiting on your retraction of the “Neukom covers 11,000 years” claim you invented and falsely attributed to me too, by the way.

"The current rate of warming… is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years,"

That's was your original claim. You relied on Marcott and Neukom to support it.

But as we've seen (well not you obviously who it seems can't see it) Marcott by his own words has said that his paper and the accompanying data can't support the claim that current warming "is faster than anything seen". Of course you didn't know that at the time and after I'd pointed it out you've now spent who knows how many words trying to hide your embarrassment at the simplest of errors.
The funniest part is that Marcott's own words about hos own paper disprove your claims and you've been trying to claim ever since that you understand his data better than the team that compiled it.

And of course Neukom can't support your original claim because it doesn't cover 11,000 years. A study that compiles data for the last 2000 years can't make claims about the last 11000 years. It seems rather obvious and I can't fathom why it goes over your head.

"Yes, the average sampling resolution of the raw datasets is ~160 years....."

Somewhere in that paragraph is a JD admission that he was wrong about what Marcott said was the average resolution. But JD doesn't do apologies. He just tries to muddy the water and thinks that absolves his error. In a month's time he'll be saying he got it right and I misquoted Marcott. Ethics of an alley-cat.

I say the average sampling resolution is 160 years.
JD says I'm wrong because I didn't read the paper.
I quote from the paper showing average sampling resolution is 160 years.
JD says the paper's wrong!! you can't make this stuff up.

Of course, Dorinda Cox isn't the first person to exit the Greens. Lidia Thorpe also left.

Both were so-called First Nations people. Its claimed the Liberals have a woman problem. It seems the Greens have an aboriginal problem. But the usual sycophantic crowd will close their eyes and not notice.

mhaze,

Let’s slow this down so your audience can see what just happened...

//You relied on Marcott and Neukom to support [your claim about the past 11,000 years].//

Correct. And the claim holds.

You’re trying to disprove a synthesis by pretending the components must each independently cover all 11,000 years at high resolution. That’s like saying a microscope and a telescope can’t be used together to study a system.

Marcott reconstructs the broad Holocene context. Neukom focuses where it matters most. Together, they show that modern warming - both in rate and soon in magnitude - lies outside Holocene norms.

//Marcott by his own words has said that his paper... can't support the claim that current warming ‘is faster than anything seen’.//

Wrong again.

Marcott said his data alone couldn’t resolve sub-century spikes due to resolution limits. That’s not a disavowal - it’s a limitation clearly stated in the paper itself. Hence why Neukom (2019) exists and why I cited both.

You’re not revealing a contradiction. I acknowledged the resolution issue from the start. You’re just repeating the caveat as if no one else noticed it.

//Neukom can't support your claim because it doesn’t cover 11,000 years.//

So, you've forgotten what I've explained (twice this week already) about scientific inference?

Once again, it doesn’t need to. That’s the point. We don’t need 11,000 years of annual data to conclude that today’s rate of warming is anomalous. We need:

- Broad millennial-scale context (Marcott),
- High-resolution recent rate data (Neukom),
- And robust inference across overlapping timescales.

//JD says the paper’s wrong!!//

No. I said you misrepresented it.

And I wasn’t “wrong” about the resolution. I quoted the very sentence you now cling to, which you pretended supported your point while skipping its context. I never said the average wasn’t 160 years.

So again: your “no evidence” claim is done.

Also, repeating “you were embarrassed” a dozen times doesn’t change the fact that you’re the one who fled the thread when Neukom entered the picture.

But now that you’ve finally acknowledged it, maybe next time - read the whole paper first.

Trumpster,

Nice try at deflection, the lost of representation should be of concern to any political party, including the Greens.

Now, Elon Muck and his muck racking. Nothing to say about your man Trumps dirt linen, skeletons in the closet, etc etc, no doubt there are some deep dark secrets contained in the Epstein files about your man Trump. Not interested, no comment?

Paul,

"Not interested, no comment?"

The Trump-Epstein stories are false. There are plenty of icons of the left who visited Epstein island but Trump wasn't there. The most famous Trump-Epstein encounter was when Trump barred him from Mar-a-Lago for inappropriately dealing with an underaged girl.

Elon posted yesterday that he regretted his post and withdrew it.

Interesting that you suddenly think Elon is a good guy. A week ago he was the enemy and now he's a mate. I'd say you are struggling to reconcile your thinking, but you don't know what that means, do you.

JD. I said the average sampling resolution was 160 years.

The paper said the average sampling resolution was 160 years.

And somehow you convince yourself that I'm wrong to say the the average sampling resolution was 160 years.

You quoted 120years which is the median sampling resolution as per the paper. You got mean and median mixed up.

Admit it and move on

mhaze,

Let’s clear this up - since, once again, you’re trying to turn a throwaway line about resolution into the main event.

I never disputed that the average sampling resolution of Marcott’s datasets was 160 years. That’s in the paper. I quoted the median resolution - ~120 years - which is also in the paper:

“The median resolution of the 73 proxy records is ~120 years.” - Marcott et al. (2013), p. 1198

So no, I didn’t confuse mean and median. I stated one, you stated the other. They both appear in the study. And the difference is irrelevant to the argument unless you’re trying to avoid it altogether.

But thank you - truly - for illustrating my exact point. This is the pattern:

- You misrepresent a study.
- You get corrected.
- You pivot to a minor semantic or statistical nitpick, blow it up into a character issue, and hope people forget why we’re here.

This thread diversion is about your false claim that there’s “no evidence” the current rate of warming is unprecedented. It was wrong then, and it’s even more wrong now.

If you need to focus on whether I used “average” or “median” in a single clarification post - because that’s all you’ve got - be my guest.

Just don’t confuse it with a defense.

I said it was 160 years.

You said it was 120 years and made the snide remark that this showed I hadn't read the paper.

I proved it was 160 years.

You immediately went into damage control rather than just admit error.

Same old. Make error -> get found out -> write a long post trying to find a way to hide error -> rinse, repeat.

The funniest part is that you didn't even know where the 120year number came from until I pointed it out.

mhaze,

No damage control needed - just reality. But it’s good to see you perk - even if it is only because you think you’ve found something you can inflate into a scandal to distract from everything else falling apart.

You’re now claiming I didn’t even know where the 120-year figure came from, despite the fact I quoted it directly from the paper. Here it is, verbatim:

“The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a median resolution of 120 years.”
- Marcott et al. (2013), p. 1198

There it is. Plain as day.

You cited the mean resolution of 160 years - which is also in the paper, and also true. I cited the median. Both are valid measures of central tendency, both are present in the text, and neither contradicts the other.

So no, I didn’t confuse the two, I didn’t deny your figure, and I didn’t get “found out.” I cited one measure. You cited the other. The only “error” here is the one you desperately wish I made - because your entire argument collapsed, and you need something, anything, to distract from that.

It’s a familiar pattern: you latch onto what you hope is a misstep, obsess over it, and pretend it discredits everything else - while ignoring the actual argument entirely.

Which is this:
- You claimed there’s no evidence the current rate of warming is unusual.
- That claim is false.
- And you’ve been running from that fact ever since.

The only thing being “rinsed and repeated” here is your evasion.

Trumpster

Why should I "suddenly think Elon is a good guy". I think he's scum bag, but even scum bags can have interesting things to say. Elon Muck was a close confidant of the Dangerous Doctor Donald, and would have interment knowledge of Donald secrets. "Trump barred him (Epstein) from Mar-a-Lago for inappropriately dealing with an underaged girl." Did Dirty Old Donald have a moral moment? After all he has form when it comes to what many would call immorality. Do you recall Stormy Daniels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LW1uDCgTo8

Bernie Sanders on defeating Trumpism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70nHmlapu7w

"You cited the mean resolution of 160 years - which is also in the paper, and also true."

Oh good you finally owned up.

" I didn’t deny your figure, and I didn’t get “found out.” "

Wow, your ability to just rewrite the facts as it suits is amazing. Even within the same thread. And apparently without the slightest embarrassment. Quite amazing. Just to be clear, you said my figure was wrong and gave what you thought was the correct figure and then snidely claimed this proved I hadn't read the paper. And you've been back-tracking ever since.

"Do you recall Stormy Daniels."

Yep. I remember she had to pay damages to Trump.

Trump's quite amazing. He gets the hookers to pay him.

mhaze,

No backtracking. Just basic statistical literacy - which I knew you’d try to spin into something it’s not.

I quoted the median resolution (120 years) from the paper, which is accurate. You quoted the mean (160 years), which is also accurate. They’re both in the text, and they don’t contradict each other. If you’d simply said “The mean is 160,” we’d have had no quarrel. But instead, you framed that figure like it settled something - while ignoring that both figures appear for a reason.

And no, clarifying your selective quoting of the paper doesn’t mean I’ve “finally owned up” to anything. It means I gave context you left out.

Your entire play here rests on pretending that pointing to one valid statistic somehow disproves the other - and that this invented contradiction erases the original issue: your claim that there is "no evidence" the current rate of warming is unusual.

That claim is still false. And you’re still pretending this detour somehow saved it.

You poor delusional fool my dear Trumpster,

"On May 31, 2024 DONALD TRUMP was found guilty of 34 felony counts – all stemming from the $130,000 hush money payment he made to Stormy Daniels." Can't see why Trump would have a problem with his friend Epstein.

"Jeffrey Epstein described himself as Donald Trump’s “closest friend” and claimed intimate knowledge of his proclivity for sex, including cuckolding his best friends." Epstein spoke at length about Trump with author Michael Wolff.

Actually, mhaze, you were right about one detail.

When I said “closer to 120,” I was referring to the median, which I’d just seen quoted in the paper. So, I should’n have implied your 160 (the mean) was wrong. That part’s on me.

But let’s not pretend this was some devastating error.

Both figures are in the paper. I cited one, you cited the other. The only person making a scene over it is you - because you’re still dodging the fact that both Marcott and Neukom contradict your claim that “there’s no evidence” today’s warming rate is anomalous.

So yes, I could’ve avoided the confusion if I’d paused longer before replying. But it doesn’t change the evidence - or the fact that your original claim didn’t survive first contact with it.

There. You see how easy that was? A simple acknowledgment - no grand retreat, no convoluted evasions, no revisionism.

Just imagine the time, energy, and reputational wear you could’ve spared yourself over the past 12 months if you'd simply said:

“Sorry, it was my impression that Marcott (2013) disproved the claim that current warming is unprecedented.”

See how easy that was? Life becomes a lot less draining when you exercise a little honesty - both with others, and with yourself.

"But let’s not pretend this was some devastating error."

No the devastating error was that you knew so little about these facts that you thought that (1) I was wrong and (2) it showed I hadn't read the paper. If you'd left that last snark out of your comments, I'd have set you straight and then dropped it. But snark requires a smack-down. Consider yourself suitably smacked-down.

Paul, poor clueless Paul...

"Daniels was ordered to pay Trump’s attorneys just over $120,000 in legal fees. That’s on top of the more than $500,000 in court-ordered payments to Trump attorneys she’s already been ordered to pay."

http://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/politics/stormy-daniels-pay-trump-legal-fees/index.html

Your excuse doesn’t hold, mhaze.

//If you’d left that last snark out of your comments, I’d have set you straight and then dropped it. But snark requires a smack-down.//

If that’s really how you felt, then correcting me at the time would’ve been the honest and natural response. But you didn’t - not because you were exercising restraint, and not because I deserved a “smack-down.” You didn’t say anything because you hadn’t read that part of the paper.

And now, days later, you’re retrofitting your silence with a self-serving story: that you were merely biding your time, holding back a correction out of wounded dignity, only to come roaring back after looking it up. It’s not believable - especially coming from someone whose daily tone makes my one-line of “snark” look like a love letter.

As for your latest accusation:

//The devastating error was that you knew so little about these facts that you thought (1) I was wrong and (2) it showed I hadn't read the paper.//

Let’s break that down.

(1) I never said your figure was wrong. I quoted the median (120 years) and should’ve made that clearer - which I later did.

(2) I said your mistake suggested you hadn’t read the paper - because, until then, you’d been paraphrasing a debunking blog and showed no sign of having read Marcott directly. That impression wasn’t pulled from thin air. It was based on your misrepresentation of the paper’s claims, your refusal to engage with its actual argument, and your initial silence on the resolution nuance you’re now fixated on.

So no, the “devastating error” wasn’t ignorance on my part. It was your stubborn attempt to blow a single statistic into a scandal to avoid acknowledging that you misrepresented Marcott’s findings and ignored Neukom’s entirely until cornered.

And we’re still waiting for you to walk that back.

"because, until then, you’d been paraphrasing a debunking blog and showed no sign of having read Marcott directly. That impression wasn’t pulled from thin air. It was based on your misrepresentation of the paper’s claims, your refusal to engage with its actual argument, and your initial silence on the resolution nuance you’re now fixated on."

You fabricate more often than I breathe.

If you say so, mhaze.

//You fabricate more often than I breathe.//

You’re certainly quick to accuse, but never quite as quick to explain - rules for thee, but not for me.

I’ve supported my position with citations, direct quotes, and a clear account of how your claim evolved and unraveled. You, on the other hand, have responded with:

- A vague accusation (see above)
- No examples
- No rebuttal of the points I raised
- And still no engagement with the actual claim you made - that modern warming rates show "no evidence" of being unusual.

If you genuinely think I’ve fabricated something, say what it is. Quote me. Show your work. Because if all you’ve got left is dismissive bluster, then I’m happy to let the audience judge which of us has done the heavy lifting here - and which of us just hopes no one notices the retreat behind smoke.