"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