Well you are the one that quoted what I said, so surely you can re-read what transpired yourself. Of course, you cut my quote, but whatever.
Fine, you sucked me in. I went back and checked, and no one in this thread said that. You were apparently the first person to bring up the idea that this sort of change "has never happened before" so I think I can safely stand by my assertion that you only brought up because you thought you could refute it, instead of dealing with any of the actual criticisms in this thread. That was dishonest of you. I'm not sure where you're getting your talking points, but they're leading you astray. You're arguing with yourself, and for some reason I feel compelled to step in and correct you. Perhaps because your performative strawman argument wasn't a part of this thread, and you only started/ended it in order to spread your pre-existing ideas about the topic in an attempt to influence other people's opinions.
It's a dumb game. Can I start a thread refuting that Zoltani is a booger-eater? There's really no good evidence for Zoltani's booger eating, though there's clearly a compelling argument that says he eats boogers more often now than he used to. The jury's still out, I just wanted everyone to be aware of the disagreement about how often Zoltani eats boogers, because in reality it's probably not nearly as often as everyone says it is.
See? It's a dumb way to make your point. If you have something to say about something in the thread, then please address it directly. You don't need to make up new stuff just to inject you false ideas into the conversation.
What misinformation did I present exactly?
For the third time now...
Claiming that the current pace of warming is a common occurrence in Earth history, without catastrophic environmental consequences, was misinformation.
Claiming the cause of the Younger Dryas was unknown, and implying that this uncertainty discredits climate research, was misinformation.
Accusing me of dishonesty for pointing out your mistakes was also misinformation, but in the more general sense of being a jerk rather than in the more fraudulent sense of continuing to promote easily falsifiable ideas.
Claiming that you weren't "talking about consensus" when you ridiculed a post about consensus was misinformation, though of the purely nonsensical instead of the deliberately deceptive variety.
Were you also the person who posted about zebras in California? That was a good one.
I'm really surprised by your less than professional scientist behavior in this thread.
I'm rolling with the pigs here. The amount of underhanded trickery, deception, fraud, and lies around this topic is absolutely mind boggling. Notice that nobody beat Trump in the primary by taking the high road. I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty in order to play the game on the field where the game is being played. Welcome to the internet.