"My response was due to the title. Debunking implies a clear dismissal. Such a title does indeed indicate prejudice against global warming and a desire to see it dismissed based on whatever counters can be found when it is used in conjunction with such an inconclusive counter argument. You chose to copy the title from the decidedly anti-GW CCNet. If you felt differently a different title would have been appropriate."

I usually use whatever title is on an article (copy it [and that's why it was in caps {I don't usually type in CAPS}]). I do this so people will know before even opening my post, what the post is about [assuming they might have already read the article, and because it's simply easier than making my own title]. I do, sometimes change the title, particularly if there is some topic I wish to discuss about it- and title reflects that topic. Same goes with title in a reply- I leave it, unless there is "some reason" to change it.

"It amazes me how much Peiser is willing to base impact estimates on myth and legends while disdaining computer models as a valid basis for scientific conclusions. As a grad school modeler myself and a working engineer who has found commercial computer models very useful, I find that attitude most unscientific."

Doesn't amaze me. Peiser is simply looking for information. I think he is quite aware of human bias- whether humans in the distant past or present.
In fact understanding history allows you to more easily see bias because it offers a "different dimenison of understanding the world"- and that is the main value of studying history.