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.