:-)
Consider yourself highly commended.
Just two minor comments.
Science is not a matter of politics.
In essence and theory yes; but now, unfortunately, due to the Marxists (Gramscian infiltration), it is.
Even more lamentably, politics is not a matter of science, but of demagoguery.
Newt Gingrich is entitled to believe in the science of global warming based on the data and still be a good conservative. Especially if that belief was formed before the damning e-mails were made public. There is precious little distinction being made on these threads between accepting science or rejecting science on the one hand and what the political implications one draws from that science on the other hand. Gingrich, for example, has always made it clear that free-market solutions for the science of global warming should be found and, if they are not found, the Democrats will find "solutions" which will impose socialism. That is a perfectly sound conservative point of view.
There are two problems: one is that a view that "the science is settled" is incommensurate with true science, as science is always self-correcting over time and subject to revision as new data are acquired.
As Feynman pointed out, the scientist must bend over backwards to find any holes in his data OR theory; and be overly generous towards any alternative explanation.
(Note the recent revelations of satellite data showing Lake Michigan being at some 600oF...)
And the other issue is government control being sold as a Free Market solution, e.g. "Cap and Trade". The problem is the implicit government fiat as to the "acceptable" level of emissions.
Cheers!
:-)