Global Warming For Dummies

Most folk have some idea of what they believe regarding man made global warming. I use the word  "believe"  advisedly, even in the case of scientists. It is my view that the average joe has as much chance of reaching the right conclusion as a trained scientist (I am the latter). As an average joe with a science education I have come to my own conclusions.  While I may not know  the actual effect of man made CO2 on climate change I do know the following:

1.   No scientist would state: "the science is settled" because it never is, on any  subject. Ever.
2.   Consensus, even if true is a piss poor argument in science. Don't believe me? Ask  Einstein.     
3.   Anyone can do science. You do not need a degree in the appropriate field, or a list of published papers. Doubt me? Ask Einstein again. Conversely, just because someone  has such a degree, this does not mean that anything third person says is valid.
4. Science and activism do not mix. Are you listening David Suzuki?
5. Most of the people involved in the debate are cheerleaders. They have not read  any of the science or arguments, or they are not able to understand them, and they are just choosing sides based on their prejudices and adding their voices to the choirs.
6. There is big money to be made or spent.
7. The issue connects seamlessly to political ideologies, nationally and internationally.
8. The world is warming, naturally and will likely to continue to do so as we proceed out of the last ice age.
9. One way or another, we will eventually find out the truth of the matter. Unlike the ozone layer, nothing has been done about the alleged cause of global warming

For me, I would add some more 'facts' which I imagine many out there would dispute:

1. If you are talking about 'global warming', and it doesn't warm up you can't rebrand  it to 'climate change', especially when all the impacts have to do with warming.
2. You cannot erase the medieval warming period just because it is inconvenient.
3. Models are only as good as the predictions they make. If they are wrong, then they have no predictive value. If they have no predictive value, why are we talking about them?
4. If you are unwilling or unable to provide your original data for review and verification, then there is no data.
5. Standardizing, correcting or otherwise modifying original data largely destroys the credibility of the data.

•    There is one more very important  question I have : Given that there is little chance of stopping anthropogenic global warming  (this is something we all agree on) why is it that the believers in AGW are not advocating any actions to mitigate the effects it might have?