I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.<quoted text>
The paper was reviewed by the NAS and validated as complete and competent work. The techniques of multi-proxy climate studies by Mann, et al, established the basic methodology for MANY other studies that validate and enhance his conclusion. One thing that is clearly shown in stuch studies with a limted latitude range are that there is a change in the DISTRIBUTION of thermal energy in the NH while those of the entire NH show little or no change in the TOTAL SUM of thermal energy.
One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP. Does the temperaure rise 2C? Over 50 years or two? Starting in 1100? or When? The studies so far have LABELLED any warming period of any degree within a few hundred years of the MWP as defined in Western Europe, which is not reasonable science. Every region
I am not clear as to which scientific point you made that I have not addressed.
As to the two points above:
You wrote: "One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP."
Once again YOU are correct!... though this description appears rather definitive:
"The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Lit- tle Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history during which temperatures in Europe and neighboring regions of the North Atlantic are believed to have been comparable to, or to have even exceeded, those of the late 20th century. This period is conventionally believed to have occurred from approximately 900–1300 AD, terminating with the more moderate conditions of the 15th century, and the Little Ice Age (see Little Ice Age, Volume 1) which impacted Europe during the 16th–mid 19th centuries. The Medieval Climatic Optimum appears to have been in large part a feature of the North Atlantic and neighboring regions (Wigley et al., 1981). Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe and parts of North America. Regional temperature pat- terns elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated this period."
There is also evidence that suggests there could be as many other MWP scholarly papers...
And again there seems to be 'robust' evidence that there are scholorly papers that address SH proxies on this subject:
"Understanding the timings of interhemispheric climate changes during the Holocene, along with their causes, remains a major problem of climate science. Here, we present a high-resolution 10Be chronology of glacier fluctuations in New Zealand’s Southern Alps over the past 7000 years, including at least five events during the last millennium. The extents of glacier advances decreased from the middle to the late Holocene, in contrast with the Northern Hemisphere pattern. Several glacier advances occurred in New Zealand during classic northern warm periods. These findings point to the importance of regional driving and/or amplifying mechanisms. We suggest that atmospheric circulation changes in the southwest Pacific were one important factor in forcing high-frequency Holocene glacier fluctuations in New Zealand."
This cut n paste thing is a lot easier than I imagined... No wonder it is so popular among those who believe in CAGW.
As to your second point:
Perhaps there are people of science that might find such studies of interest.
Now if you could please find even 1 point of reason or rationality or logic or science that I have failed to address I would be interested to see it....