Let's go down your list:

Scientists do not have much of a consensus at all on the many possible outcomes of global warming. Do you think it is going to be "catastrophic" in the next 100 years?

Predicting anything of this sort is called "conjecture." Look it up. When I was doing my Master's work, we ran models of the changes _that took place_ (Meaning, these things had already happened.) When the Farallon Plate collided with the West Coast of North America. We were mainly interested in the effects of the Pacific Northwest around Oregon and Washington. We plugged in everything we knew and you know what happened over and over? Vancouver Island became part of the mainland. We know why it didn't but everything we knew about the process said it should. Even computer models of past occurrences containing known facts are flawed. What if it had been ninety-five percent conjecture? Predicting climate is just that; conjecture.

When I said "We can't believe it's actually going to change!" I wasn't referring to scientists. I was referring to the people who let others do all their thinking for them. You know as well as I do the basic tenets of modern thinking is everything should remain as it is. We even flip when a species becomes extinct even though extinction and death is the most fundamental part of reality along with birth. It was no straw man argument.

"Never before in recorded history has the rate of climate change been as fast as it has been in recent decades, and the increase in the rate of climate change is both predicted and explained by fossil fuel burning." You base this on what recorded history? Think about that for a moment. Are we talking about the thermometer hanging out on the barn we ordered from Montgomery Ward? Or the thermometer a weatherman in Boston ordered from Montgomery Ward? Are we talking about tree rings or tea leaves? What would you say the relation is in the present time to when every individual in the civilized world heated everything they had to heat with a fire? Which, for hundreds of years, consisted of burning a LOT of coal? Would you say the Earth is cleaner now than it was then? Seriously, do you? Do you think the air we breathe and the water we swim in is dirtier than it was in the 1960's?

Do you honestly think we're facing a global warming catastrophe that will make the world of our grandchildren unlivable?

Do you honestly think that a planet that has been bombarded by untold numbers of huge asteroids, been subjected to countless warming and cooling events that were strong enough to change the very geology of the planet is going to be destroyed (Save the Planet!) by a tenth of a percent increase in CO2?

Do you honestly think that a species that rose out of the Ice Age (Hey, that was a major thing when all you had to keep you warm was bear skins and rubbing two sticks together.) BETTER than it was when it went into it is going to die out because of any of this?

Mankind has written about miracles from God which none of us have ever seen yet some believe in it.

Mankind has written about evolution which not even men in biblical times ever saw, and yet some of us believe in it.

We make a big deal about sedimentary strata and the fossils they contain. We date these fossils from the strata they're found in. For instance, Cambrian. Did you know that we also date the strata from the fossils they contain? We date a strata to Cambrian times because it contains Cambrian fossils and we date the fossils as Cambrian because they were found in a Cambrian strata. Amazing, isn't it? I'm not making it up. :) My specialty is paleogeology. You brought up "Straw man" and now I've brought up "Circular reasoning." It would seem we really don't know how old the damned things are but we pretend we do and people, of course, believe it.