I like to thank the reviewers for their thorough assessments and the authors for their responses to the comments of the reviewers as well as their reply to comments from the community. However, a couple of issues were raised which I would like to address in my final statement.
Reviewer 1 raises the serious issue of plagiarism. I agree with the reviewer that several sections are indeed very similar to corresponding sections from Steinhardt et al. (2014). However, these refer to the use of similar material, description of methods and oceanographic settings and proper reference is made Steinhardt et al. (2014). Hence, I do not consider that plagiarism but agree with the reviewer that instead of “copy and paste” the authors could have shortened these sections and leave it with a simple reference to prior publications. This is, in fact, what they have done in the revised manuscript. They have reconsidered the text of sections 3.1 and 3.3 and deleted the previous section 3.4 to avoid unnecessary overlap with Steinhardt et al. (2014).
Referee 2 argues that “if the data are generated from individual foraminifera, analytically sound "outliers" should not be excluded since they reflect the actual variability within the population” This is a very important point as there is almost no information on intraspecific variability. How do we know that values translating into unrealistically high seawater temperatures “are therefore probably incorrect”? We assume that Foraminifera are perfect “geochemists” but do we know how good they are? The authors have retained the data as a supplementary file, which is important, and could be a topic of a follow up manuscript.
I have reviewed the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript addresses most of the comments made by the reviewers satisfactorily and I recommend that your manuscript be published.