Sorry for the slow response. Let's start here: Regardless of your previous statements, I hope we at least agree at some level on the following:
1) Annual average temperatures (particularly ocean) have increased a measurable amount in the past several decades. Whether this change has been caused by humans is another question.
2) This increase has already had a measurable impact, thus far, such as significant ice pack decrease and glacier retreat.
3) If the temperatures continue to rise at the same rate, over the next several decades, then with our current technology, this will be at best an enormous challenge to our current way of life. I'm not saying there's proof this will happen, just seeing if you agree there is a significant consequence if there is such a temperature increase.
If you don't agree with thee above, there's probably not much point in discussing climate change. We're just too far apart. After all, if I understand Exxon and/or BP's stance on climate, even they would agree with the above, along with some degree of human culpability.
Regardless, some of the criticisms you have are common and there are alternative viewpoints that sound reasonable. I would ask that you check out this site: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
and let me know what you think. No doubt, some of the answers are simplistic, but it's a start.
Now, let me address at least a couple items that you've brought up:
Tom, I agree on coal burning, regardless of location. And "CO2" is quicker to type than "greenhouse gases." By peer review, I was indeed responding to the specific article that Harry posted. I agree that a single peer-reviewed article is far less than the scientific consensus established for climate change. And if you demand proof, there won't be proof of climate change until it's too late. Unfortunately, we don't have 2 or more Earths to provide controls. But I also agree that at some level, scientists should be skeptical of any theory. That's their job.
Chuck, population control is an admirable goal, and I would like to see more discussion on this. However, I'm pretty sure your number of 1.5 to 2 Billion, or even 6.9 billion, would have far less consensus and result in much more controversy than climate change. At least in the U.S. As far as Newton, if only I could have such an impact. "Wrong" was maybe too harsh, but it is what it is. My understanding of relativity, albeit all I really know well is special relativity, and even that is a lot more than just the Lorentz factor. GPS navigation is a great example of Newton wrong, in that it wouldn't work very well without Einstein. Sure, Newton works great for a lot of situations, and I really don't think Newton would be insulted (even though he was a jerk). A series of refinements describe science quite well, and most refinements are MUCH smaller than Einsteins'. Sorry, this is getting off track of climate...
I do think you guys are overreacting a bit on falsification, scandals, profit motives, etc. With the scrutiny of climate research, I can't believe there's not many more "scandals." Scientists are human. I hope nobody ever goes through my e-mails or quotes me. Even if true (the most recent with NOAA is still not clear, and with others, you don't hear all sides in the press), these scandals are not the only data supporting the evidence. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a consensus. Also, see the pharmaceutical business. Should we forsake prescription drugs?
In terms of challenges that may be even more important than climate change, I'd put mass extinction on the top of the list. It's amazing how little press this gets.
Sorry to be so long-winded, and I haven't even come close to addressing everything brought up