I see Mr. Leftist Blogger still can't handle the English language and has resorted to the "in order to debunk something, you have to have bunk" argument. All you need to do to debunk something, by definition, is to ridicule the falsehood of a particular sentiment. And given the multiple flaws with the hockey stick graph already exposed, as well as the ClimateGate emails with the words "hide the decline" in them, it's clear that there was at least some falsehood in the hockey stick graph.
So, Mr. Leftist Blogger, your "you have to bunk something before you can debunk it" line is...well...bunk.
Now, onto another point. You claim that some of the people I quoted as debunking the hockey stick graph weren't climatologists, so their debunking doesn't count. One tiny problem with that, sunshine. See, one aspect of AGW research that you've neglected is the use of computer models, including with the hockey stick graph. The problem with use of computer models is that they're only as good as the people doing the programming. As has been exposed already, the computer models being used to "prove" AGW was man-made were fundamentally flawed.
And who exposed it? Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
As a result of this, McIntyre and McKitrick have been ridiculed and slandered by people like Mr. Leftist Blogger, but the fact remains: the computer models were wrong. And that's a damn tough thing to spin away, even for Al Gore's minions.
And while we're here, Mr. Leftist Blogger, I notice you haven't taken up for the "scientists" (read: pediatricians and veterinarians) who have signed onto AGW as being man-made. I'm sure you can provide us a link to a study done by, say, a pediatrician that has been peer reviewed and shows all the scientific heft your side claims to have on this subject.
You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to man up.