You must not understand my comments. I do not doubt that the cooling takes place. I say that "However it is quite clear that this reduction of temperature is due to a change in ocean currents". So I don't dispute the cooling, but I am questioning the cause. I think we actually agree on this point.
Also, I am very happy to accept that the MWP and LIA did exist. I don't know of anyone who says otherwise. What I object to is poor scientific methodology and biased reporting being introduced into the debate.
I agree, you have presented a number of papers. However I believe I have discussed most (all?) of them and have shown that they do not support the conclusions as presented.
"So I don't dispute the cooling,"
globally?!? you dont dispute LIA as a whole?!? Then why quibble fo this data point?
"but I am questioning the cause."
I've not disputed the fact you raise, just what it means in the wider context of the discussion. This discussion is becoming too pedantic for such a forum and we are disagreeing over validity of sources anyway, so ... have a good day.
"Also, I am very happy to accept that the MWP and LIA did exist. I don't know of anyone who says otherwise."
Okay, point of agreement... excuse my hasty previous reply.
If you accept LIA, though, it's simply a rabbit trail to dispute the underlying cause of a particular temperature record locally. Daly's argument is not about why they changed, but about the existence of change itself in the previous millenium. If you accept it (LIA), you accept his point.
It have been noted that CO2 fertilization affects growth rates, in turn biasing the tree ring records to disattenuate prior temperature variability in the record. Since Mann over-emphasized in his PCA the bristlecone pine samples, this effect may have impacted his results. You can nitpick sample after sample this way.
"I believe I have discussed most (all?) of them and have shown that they do not support the conclusions as presented."
Your view.
"What I object to is poor scientific methodology and biased reporting being introduced into the debate. "
Then you should be red in the face over the IPCC reports and their phony exagerrated claims, over the data errors known to be in MBH98 that were only corrected 6 years later (and perhaps not fully acknowledged yet with Mann instead attacking M+M rather than fixing his work or making it more reproducible by others), and the 'reporting' of the media that hypes the threat and the politized science in the area.