This is not a secret nor was it hidden by Dr. Mann and his colleagues. The real problem is that since the tree ring proxies have demonstrably proven to have diverged from actual temperature data during contemporary times then how can he just assume they never have in the past when there is no recorded temperatures to which to compare them? This raises the question as to what value is his entire graph when it is based upon a totally unproven and unverifiable assumption that the tree ring divergence problem is limited only to recent years.

The science is already pretty much done with as far as determining is AGW is real. About 97% of the experts in climatology all accept AGW as a fact because of the overwhelming evidence. The multiple sources of evidence from multiple lines of investigation from around the world have all come to the same conclusion. AGW has been happening and all of the evidence indicates that human activity is responsible, period, full stop. So there is no serious scientific conflict over AGW now, except a debate about forecasting the extent of the problem in the future since the average global warming rate is historically unprecedented, as far as can be determined. Instead we have non-scientists and scientists in unrelated fields being paid by fossil fuel companies to argue with the overwhelming majority of climate researchers.

That is why above I kept asking form any credible evidence that positively shows something that contradicts what is known about AGW. Paul above didn’t answer since he/she knows that what I asked for from his/her side doesn’t actually exist. Instead all we get are paid mouth pieces trying to hide from the public that the scientific consensus has already been reached due to the overwhelming evidence that AGW is real.

I agree with you that politicians are trouble, but that all the more reason to stop the ideologically motivated denialism of the facts and to start letting real scientists and engineers come up with real solutions. Continued AGW denialisim will only make things worse by delaying any real solutions until more drastic measures become unavoidable. (Personally, that’s what worries me the most about the situation.) Meanwhile politicians are more concerned with spending money to blow people up than they are with funding research to stop AGW and making wars for cheap oil unnecessary.

Second, I do not have to be a scientist wearing a robe full of medals, three hoods choking my neck, and a philosopher’s cap on my head to know what fresh country air smells like and the composition of its source.

Third, I could learn a whole lot more from you folks if I did not have to wade through all of that piss and vinegar.

Having said that, I offer this conjecture. Regardless of the cause of climate change, I suggest that humankind are collectively making a bad situation worse than it needs to be. Maybe the green guys are doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Maybe they are pioneering the wrong things. I personally believe that the surest way to make a new system fail is to let a politician design it. I do not intend this to be a slur. Politicians are just not built that way.

Perhaps scientists need to spend less time arguing about things that do not matter and start collaborating on solutions that do matter. Who knows. Maybe the solutions might become simple enough for even a politician to understand and support.