"But reading farther, the "red flag" seems more like a "blazing conflagration". In the abstract, they explain that the reason that 1504 to 1515 is considered un

"But reading farther, the "red flag" seems more like a "blazing conflagration". In the abstract, they explain that the reason that 1504 to 1515 is considered unreliable is because the written record says that lake didn't freeze for those that 8 consecutive winters. They argue in the abstract that since this is so statistically unlikely, it must be wrong. So this paper is eliminating data as unreliable because of non-freezes, and then concluding that the current string of non-freezes is unprecedented!" That's hilarious. How on earth is that justifiable?