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!