Just a few of the problems with that:
I'll take the liberty of rearranging your order for convenience sake.
* We don't really know how fast the earth might otherwise be warming.
Agreed. This is a perfectly legitimate argument to make. There is no claim to consensus on precisely how fast the earth is warming. There is a wide variation of predictions in this regard. If you think actuality will be on the low side I don't believe there's anyone that can legitimately say you're wrong. Many people may disagree with you but no one could prove you're wrong.
* It's not possible to conduct a controlled experiment on the subject.
Agreed again as it's totally obvious.
* Predicting future temperatures, even if all the baseline data were rock solid, is statistical alchemy.
Basically agreed. That's why there are ranges in predictions that vary dependent on the model. However that doesn't mean that we have no information whatsoever, it simply means that generally we can place a lower and upper bounds on where we expect it to turn out. You can't take consensus predictions that all agree that the temperature will rise somewhere from 1C to 7C by the end of the century and make the claim that we could end up in an ice age instead. But certainly within such bounds it's a crapshoot.
* The data being used by the climatologists appear to be anything but 'rock solid.'
Disagreed. There is very little data that is really in question. See the following links.
* Statistical alchemy, as currently practiced by climatologists, is insufficiently powerful to confirm the theory and failed to predict the climate trend of the past decade.
You mean the decade of 2000-2009 which has been the warmest decade on record?
* We appear to have insufficient knowledge of the full range of data variables and how they influence each other in the stew we call the 'global climate.'
* We don't know the chicken/egg relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
The last two claims are highly arguable. You should at the very least make some effort to back up these claims with some credible evidence. These are so wide as to simply say we know nothing about how the climate works at all.
I suggest the following set of videos to at least set the framework for a reasonable discussion. The first one is quick and easy and only takes 7 minutes of your time. The rest go into more detail and could be skipped if time is an issue but certainly I recommend the last couple in particular.
Man Made Climate Change in 7 Minutes
1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate
2. Climate Change -- the objections
3. Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth
4. Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin
5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
Cap and trade, in all its variations and appelations, is a hoax. The politicians in the Copenhagen process are attempting to perpetrate a hoax.
I wouldn't call it a hoax per se, but I do agree that Cap and Trade is not necessarily the best way to go about the problem either. Part of this is that my understanding of Cap and Trade is not very great.
I had in fact mentioned this in the other thread. I did a quick reading of the proposal and although I found it perhaps unnecesarily complex on the face of it I didn't see what the big fuss was all about. At that time I asked for an explanation of what was so onerous about it but have yet to receive any response whatsoever.
As far as Copenhagen I know even less about that, although one thing is for certain I do not support payments from developed countries to developing countries to offset the fact that we've been allowed to pollute and we should therefore pay them to not pollute. Instead I support that they should be required to stick to the same limits that we stick to on simply the basis of providing a level playing field for fair trade and that violation of such would deny them access to our markets. But that's just me.
Plus I'm not a big fan of compact fluorescents (CFL's). Certainly the mercury issue is a big one. But more importantly is that the usefulness is highly limited since you can't use them in enclosed globe fixtures. What's the use of a 5 year light bulb if not to put into your most inaccessible fixtures so they don't need frequent replacement? These fixtures are almost always of an enclosed globe design. Boy was I pissed when I had to climb up a ladder to replace a bulb that I had replaced only three weeks ago.