The main premise for giving credence to AGW is that climactic mechanics are so complicated that no one really knows how it all works so we had better take it seriously. Just in case a fart in a hurricane does do something miraculous. And therefore those facts that can be corroborated are meaningless because there might be an unknown factor that renders those consistent findings mere anomalies.
It certainly follows the religious model well. As long as the highest premise is "Unless you know ALL that is going on all data sets are potentially invalid." the Climate Change is Evil crowd can maintain an eternal hold on climate wisdom. Man's ignorance, which is always provable because we of course are ignorant of many things, becomes the proof that both climactic disaster is possible and humans might be the cause of a disaster. We don't know enough to prove climactic disaster isn't possible which leaves the question of cause wide open in the universe of infinite possibilities. Might as well suspect ourselves since we are provably ignorant and have provably made mistakes in the past. Never mind that we can't correlate anything man has done, good or bad, to climate changes.
To answer your post at this point would just involve me repeating myself. I don’t disagree that the AGW crowd can be very heavy handed in squelching debate. Yours is obviously not a knee jerk reaction, and although I disagree with many of your conclusions you have given me things to think about. Sorry for the insults. Enjoy the weekend.