"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