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.