Yada yada.<quoted text>
I have made no excuses and nothing has shifted. I said that the press release of Marcott's paper said that there has been no increase in temperature like that in the 20th century. But when Marcott released his FAQ, he then admitted this:
The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.
I then asked how can you compare paleotemperatures that show no variability in 300-year time periods to that of data that shows yearly variability? I stated that to get a true comparison you had to do the work with all the same type of information. You can't compare low resolution proxies to high resolution.
So then I read your link and I had a question about Tamino's work. If a 0.9 degree spike shows up, then does Tamino's work make Marcott's statement wrong about variability in 300-year time periods? If so, how come Marcott didn't use Tamino's method?