How canthere be "Consensus" when many AGW claims have been proven false?

Question

I consistently hear AGW supporters claim "consensus" as if it is scientific proof. But how can any individual call the science "beyond discussion" when many of the AGW claims have been proven wrong.
In 2001, the IPCC's report used "Hockey Stick" as proof man was the problem. However, this evidence was completely debunked. A main piece of evidence which is completely disproved does not lend itself to a science that is already "solved".
In the USA, 1998 was proclaimed as the hottest year in history by NASA and James Hansen. After scientist studied the data, it was found an error existed in NASA's calculations and 1934 was the hottest year. Again, the science is not past discussion.
Another example, in Al Gore's movie, he said, "Do these graphs fit together?" He then went on to explain that the data showed CO2 drives temperature. Again, scientist studying the data discovered that CO2 lagged temp by about 800 years.
Why do people claim the science is settled, when obviously, it is not?

Answer 1

Easy. If a "scientist" goes against the consensus, then he must work for the oil corporations, and he's no longer "fair".

Only "scientist" who follow the consensus are "pure" enough and smart enough to understand the "science".

Answer 2

Let's take each of your points.

The hockey stick was not debunked. The National Academy of Sciences said it's conclusions were basically correct, but the statistical methods questionable. Since then, it has been reproduced many times with better statistics. Ten peer reviewed studies:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

The "error" amounted to a few hundredths of a degree in the US, and about one-thousandth of a degree worldwide. It also applied only to a 2 year period. It changed absolutely nothing significant. In the US (NOT worldwide) 1934 and 1998 were extremely close, and a few hundredths of a degree made a difference. Globally those years aren't remotely close. The worldwide data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

In previous warmings CO2 did lag temperature. This time THERE IS NO LAG. CO2 and temperature are going up together. It distinguishes this warming from historical ones, and this is actually proof that this time, it's not natural, but is mostly caused by CO2.

The consensus is indisputable. EVERY major scientific organization says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The bottom line:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Answer 3

The only claims being proven wrong are the alternative theories to anthropogenic global warming, such as Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjSe.iI669IUyynlAjNLz5UjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

The so-called "hockey stick" graph was proven to be essentially correct by 10 seperate studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And 1998 was the hottest year on record globally. 1934 was the hottest year in the lower 48 United States, but guess what? It's not called "Lower 48 United States Warming", it's called "Global Warming". 1934 wasn't even a warm year on a global level, let alone the hottest on record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The 800 year lag just proves that other things can cause climate change besides CO2, but we already knew that. It does not prove that CO2 can't cause global warming. In fact, the fact that CO2 and global temperatures are currently rising at the same time (with no 800 year lag) is very strong evidence that CO2 is indeed the cause of the current warming. If something else was causing the warming, why isn't CO2 lagging behind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

This are some really old arguments which have been disproven hundreds of times a long time ago. Please try to keep up. These kinds of tired old arguments might work in the Politics section where people are ignorant of the science behind global warming, but in the Environment section many people are well-educated on the issue. Old easily debunked arguments don't fly here.