There is much debate which is either being ignored or dismissed. Since the critique of the Mann Hughes Bradely 1998 1000 year temp reconstruction(MBH98) by McKintyre and McKitrick (2003), the global warming advocates have been somewhat defensive. The questions raised my M&M are questions of both methodolgy (Principle Component Analysis), and one of cherry picking the data. MBH98 PC1 analsysis got rid of both the Little Ice Age(LIA) and Medevil Warm Period(MWP). The reliance on the N.American Britslecone tree rings, which weighted thier reconstruction on the warmside (the blade of the famous Hockey Stick) has been refuted. Their PC1 was found to be full of data mining techniques. The June 2006 NAS report was very polite in thier critique, but serious questions dealing with "social networks" (ie peer review) that never did the correct type of due diligence, as well as the robustness of MBH98 was called into question. The Little Ice Age and Medevil Warm Period are now back in the lexicon. Mann to this day refuses to recognize either- he shrugs them off as nothing more than weak teleconnections.

The MBH98 reconstruction as well as other multivariate temp reconstructions are important, as they are the only way the Gloabal Warming advocates can plead thier case (we are living in the warmest period since the beginning of the Holocene Era). Almost every reconstruction has shown to have serious statisitcal or methodoligical flaws.

It disturbs me that a serious newspaper like the Telegraph was prepared to take Monckton's paper seriously. So far as I can find out, Monckton is a former journalist with no scientific background whatsoever.
But presumably the Telegraph couldn't find a reputable scientist prepared to write something that fits their ideological rejection of global warming theory....
Mark

Laura, say that Monckton responded to his critics by "admitting his science was bad." I didn't see any such admission in the article you linked to. Was that the right link, or did I miss something in there? Thanks.

Monkton responds directly to Monbiot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1947977,00.html

Tom - it seems clear now, having re-read Monckton's second article and now reading the link that Howard provided that I mis-interpreted something he said. It was the idiomatic phrase "My calculations last week had to be rubbished." Reading it the first time, I believed he meant HE had to throw them out (because they're wrong) rather than that other people, to change the idiom to American English, "trashed them." I guess this demonstrates the old saying from George Bernard Shaw that England and America are two countries separated by a common language. It was my error.