A strawman. What you are doing bundling a large number of questions under the label 'climate science' and claiming that none of it is uncertain. Break the issues out and I will tell if there is a legimate debate or not.
Quite right. There is a lot of debate on the specifics of evolutionary biology, just as there is a lot of debate on the specifics of climite science. I wrote exactly that previously. But there is also an awful lot of debate on both of these subjects that has no place in scientific dialogue.
There is no debate on the fact that evolutionary theory is true. Just as there is no debate that AGW is true.
2 degC warming is a the maximum 'acceptable' rise - a political statement that has little connection to science. Every scientific claim has uncertainty associated with it.
No, its a statement that is either true or false on scientific grounds. There is nothing inherently political about the statement. You may disagree with the statement. You may dislike some of the consequences if the statement is true. But to suggest that it is a political statement is nonsense.
So? Why is that any difference than eco-activists that label scientists who question the consensus as stooges of big oil?
Both sides are guilty of the same things here. It is political battle and there are few boundaries.
No, this is where we disagree. There are two completely seperate "battles" here. The science debate, and the policy debate. And the only thing that will come of deliberatly blurring those lines is public confusion.
Of course, thats the goal.