Well, I wrote a detailed response to your two points and apparently took too much time... Lost the whole thing.<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.
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
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 will have periods of warming and cooling trends. The climate anywhere is NEVER stable. But to label it as the MWP without a clear definition of the MWP is just not convincing.
Secondly, and more importantly, even if they could define the MWP and get an agreement on which cherry picked locations show an anomaly, there is the question of the source of the thermal energy. To warm EVERYWHERE by 2C would take a simply ENORMOUS amount of new energy (introduced from where??) Where does this come from? Where does it go away to? Without a mechanism to show a clear source of heat (which is one of the successes of AGW theory in terms that it can show enough thermal energy accumulating to account for the warming over more than a century) any similarity of a warming period elsewhere is purely 'correlation, not causation'. And so it does not pass the 'smell test' and nobody takes it too seriously.
Repeatedly. But you never learn so apology not accepted. I would rather that you actually ADDRESS the points but you just run away. I expect no different now.
Note. The paintings of Leonardo da Vinci are NOT equal to the finger paintings of a kindegarden student. So you cannot expect the studies to be 'equal'. Your question as to why one is taken seriously and the other dismissed is juvenile and silly. One is a masterpiece. The other is a mess. Nuff said.
Anyway, here are a few thousand scholarly papers on The MWP that some 'believe does not exist ...