I trust that you'll similarly police anyone here who calls me a "socialist," "alarmist," or any other derogatory name, right?

Not speaking for Noel, but I suspect he is referring to "un-justified" derogatory names.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I knew it! There's the ad hominem attack!  Gosh, they are sooooo obvious.  Good job.  Why are you still around?  Didn't you get banished to Kos or Huff or some other troll hell on the internet?

All political websites are propaganda.

So you point is moot and irrelevant as that's a given. From the DNC website down.

This happens to be a conservative (and libertarian) oriented website where those of a conservative persuasion gather to exchange ideas and pass comments.

That's also called freedom of speech.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

True, but keep in mind that given a specific hypothesis, a lack of correlation or an "inverse" correllation can disprove a hypothesis.
For example, if the hypothesis is that increases in CO2 concentration cause a temperature increase, and what is observed is that temperature increases precede increases in CO2 concentration, then that argues against the initial hypothesis. In fact, the data would support the hypothesis that temperature increases cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This is supported by the fact that increased temperature (counterintuitively) decreases the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, causing them to release large quantities of CO2.
To date, neither hypothesis has been adequately tested (as far as I know). However I'd rate the latter hypothesis more likely based on the temporal correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration.
In short, a correlation can be consistent or inconsistent with a given hypothesis. The temporal relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration is inconsistent with the hypothesis that increased CO2 concentration is the driving force behind global temperature increases.

When Naomi Oreskes did her survey, she published it in Science.  Which peer-reviewed journal will Avery and Singer publish this in?

I haven't been shown any experiments on the AGW that can be repeated by other scientists that prove or disprove AGW, if you can supply some that would be cool, I'd like to educate myself on this.

The case for AGW is multilayered.  It's built on the physical properties of carbon dioxide, the sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and its effects on the climate system.  You're not going to find one experiment that encompasses all of that.  If you're really interested, I suggest you start with Ch 9 of the IPCC AR4.

I tell you what - I'll believe in AGW when scientist can accurately predict (in a consensus) the exact temperature 10 days from now in 5 US cities (I'm not even asking for cities in other countries - which should make it easier huh?) If they can't get this data from there models then how accurate are they?

Climate and weather are not the same things.  The accuracy of weather models says nothing about the accuracy of climate models.

just a friendly FYI: Debating is holding a position you believe in and discussing it.   Being right or wrong has nothing to do with it actually.  A debate does not mean that you are going to change someones opinion on what he is debating either.

1) What caused all the other temperature peaks in the historical record? Lemurian hovercraft SUVs?

There were a variety of causes--from changes in the Earth's orbit to changes in atmospheric composition to solar irradiance changes.  Just because the Earth warmed naturally in the past does not mean it must be warming naturally now.

2) If the AGW theory is so concrete shouldn't the data tend to be increasingly refined and hence further confirm it.

It has.  The more research scientists do, the stronger the evidence for AGW becomes.  Just compare the IPCC statements about human causation in the TAR with those in the AR4.

Why is it that most of the "evidence" of AGW can be negated totally with everyday scientific facts?

It can't.  Those who claim they can usually have their facts wrong.

3) As in the Laurie David graph, we have seen that the "hockey stick" and NASA "hottest year" graphs and tables have been proven to be false and based on fudging statistical rules, preconceived assumptions, and cherry-picked data.

No, they haven't been proven false.  If you read the NAS report on the hockey stick, it doesn't say it's false at all.  It says that uncertainties before 1600 are large but the hockey stick is still likely to be correct.  The "hottest year" change was due to a 1/100th of a degree correction in a record that's only accurate to 1/10th of a degree.  For someone so concerned about "fudging statistical rules," you should see that such a change is not statistically significant.  Also, that change only applies to the United States, not the globe.  1934 was NOT the hottest year globally.

If AGW is so infallible, why do the leading icons of the movement resort to dubious methods?

They don't.  You've mischaracterized the issue and gotten the facts wrong.  Why do "skeptics" resort to such deceptive arguments?

So what happened around the 70's and the scare that the earth was cooling and we would be in an ice age soon? 

Yet another myth:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

Wh ydont we just coast along for say 25 more years and then evalaute our situation and in the meantime collect more data and make better models. 

Why don't we cut our emissions while we wait on those better models?  Why would you assume it's safe to alter the atmospheric composition over the next 25 years?

For a start it would help increase crop yields, provide lusher, healthier vegetation and aid plant growth.

Temporarily, but then pest infestations, more frequent droughts and floods would overwhelm the benefits leading to a net loss in yields.

once again CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming

At the ends of the ice ages, CO2 reinforced an existing warming trend. Today, CO2 is entering the atmosphere through a different mechanism--human emissions--and driving a warming trend. You cannot make ham-handed comparisons between then and now.