You are taking Marcotts's statement completely out of context. It is the 11,000 years worth of data that is important. There is no question about the 20th century warming.<quoted text>
Here is the clip from the link I provided:
"Meanwhile, in a private email to McIntyre, Marcott made a surprising statement. In the paper, they had reported doing an alternate analysis of their proxy data that yielded a much smaller 20th-century uptick, but they said the difference was "probably not robust," which implied that the uptick was insensitive to changes in methodology, and was therefore reliable. But in his email to McIntyre, Marcott said the reconstruction itself is not robust in the 20th century: a very different thing. When this became public, the Marcott team promised to clear matters up with an online FAQ.
It finally appeared over the weekend [http://www.realclimate.org/in dex.php/archives/2013/03/respo nse-by-marcott-et-al/], and contains a remarkable admission: "[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.""
It's called changing what you initially said, upon which you based your initial headline grabbing fear mongering assertions.
You also seem to be dishonest, as reading the link I gave you would have allowed you to see this. Or, can't you read? I'm not going to play your troll game.
Did you bother to look at Marcott's response, or are you simply ignoring data that does not agree with your point of view?