The last hundred years is not only below the resolution of the reconstruction, but also not representative:Let's quote from the paper again:
"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 is worrying that they only tell us this *now*, after the story has been broadcast around the world.
Without filling data gaps, our Standard5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6°C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.The large red words are my emphasis, but perhaps they should have appeared that way in the paper too, so Lomborg would have seen them.