Sorry, it is wrong to state that:
"theories have, over the centuries, fallen by the wayside as the "anomalies" you mention have not been able to be reconciled to fit with the theory"
Theories are never disproven UNTIL a better theory replaces them.
Again, every theory always has anomalies - the mere existence of anamolies does nothing to disprove a theory unless and until a different theory explains those anomalies, and more. We could get into the philosophy of science reasoning behind this, but it's just the way science works.
In essence, what you are saying is analagous to saying that "Global warming isn't true because it doesn’t account for the anomaly that my town is colder this year than it was last year"
Well, duh. But no theory will ever be able to explain all anamolies. A theory that did so would not be a theory it would be the universe.
Anomalies serve a prime purpose though: by examining existing anomalies new theories arise.
But until a new theory arrives, then the old theories are the forefront of scientific progress and knowledge. To believe otherwise is essentially finding a way to allow yourself to believe in anything you want to (ie: to base one's reality only on dogma, ideology, etc).
Now, as to your wiki quote: True, the VERY SAME authors of the study that examines temparture records for the past 1000 years state said that. They also said: "We focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats"
And that is exactly why they are good scientists - they weigh all the available evidence and anticipate and address counter-theories, and come to a conclusion that is well supported.
And that conclusion remains, to wit: "Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900."
Note hwoever that the same authors do indeed state that "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600"
That is why said that it was wrong to claim that "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago." ie: Today it is 2006 AD. We have detailed and accurate ways of measuring temps up until 1600, and less confidence back to 900 AD. So, I stand by my claim that you are incorrect when you say "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."
As to a "past warming period" see the following articles which make the case that "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over the [European Medieval period], and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and...n_IPCC_reports
There are similar articles on the little ice age.
And, no, I absolutely do not dimsiss the claims of climatologists who "do not believe the popular theory of global warming" - in fact, their opinions are the one's I relish the most. This is because they are the one's who will indeed put theories to the test, gather testable data, and, perhaps, come up with a better theory to replace current global warming ones. But, again, UNTIL a better theory comes along, that explains the anomalies, makes predictions, and explains more than the current theories, we have to go with global warming.
Sorry if I upset you, but I have reached the point in life where I can no longer sit back and watch while people make decisions that affect everyone, and perhaps the whole world, based on what appears to me their wishful thinking, selfish desire to avoid higher taxes, or some misguided relgiious belief. (eg: Ann Coulter saying "The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet--it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view." see "Oil Good; Democrats bad" dated October 12, 2000.)
We all live on this planet. I have sat by for decades and assumed that Mankind will continue to make progress because we are rational and reasonable and trust in science and enlightenment, not solely faith or dogma. However, that seems to be a thing of the past -our leaders and voters make decisions based not on facts but on 30-second sound bites, and intolerance and 'instinct' and I won't sit idly by and watch it any longer. So I take these things head on. I'm sorry, therefore, if you were upset by what I wrote, but I am not sorry about what I said.
I await the arrival of a better theory than global warming.
AMF
EDIT: Actually, I do apologize for saying "Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures. " - that WAS gratuituous, unwarranted, uncalled for, and just plain uncool. Sorry.