Point 1: Scott Adams pointed out that when asked the question "how much of global warming is caused by humans, and how much is natural" in debates and televised interviews, no scientist had an answer.
The answer is 50-70% according to this latest research.
Point 2: Another Scott Adams observation is about the models. Why is there more than 1 model? Shouldn't scientists agree on the best model and just use it? Shouldn't scientists agree on the best *data* and just use it?
Define "best model". For example, one model may be the best method for describing Europe and the Arctic. Another may be the best for describing ocean temperatures. One may be the best for the years 1998-2003, another 2004-20013. The truth is that there is no "one best" model. So, we run them all and plot all of their results and crunch the numbers to try and get the best answer we can.
Point 3: Also from Scott Adams is the observation that NO other complex model has ever had predictive value, and why should we believe that this one does? Why are you disregarding all the other, non-complex models?
The key word you use here is "complex". You see, any time you start adding adjectives, you are starting to cheat/hide/skew the system. For example: Define complex. Define the accuracy for predictive value. Also, why are you automatically disregarding other, less complex models from your consideration?
Point4: From my view, climate change is closely tied with the actions that "we must do to save ourselves!", and those actions are always a) part of the liberal agenda, b) involve reducing our standard of living, and c) negatively impact most people while further lining the pockets of the rich and powerful.
You have a number of ideas here. So, just because a certain group - in this case liberals - advocate a certain action doesn't mean they are wrong. If a member of the KKK said you should evacuate a building that is on fire, just because you don't like the person doesn't mean you shouldn't evacuate. As for (b) - yes, we are consuming too much, and need to knock it off if we want everyone to have a life that doesn't completely suck! Are you willing to air condition a 400 sq ft. home, so the difference in energy compared to what you consume now can air condition a 100 sq ft. room in Africa? No? Well, I don't care - it is your decision. However, a lot of people will think you are a jerk for consuming tens, if not hundreds, of times the resources of someone barely scraping by in some areas of the planet. Plus, the world can't sustain a high standard of living for everyone - at least, not without a LOT more preparation and engineering. For (c), I call bullshit. If you want to claim that, give me some numbers and scenarios. I doubt the executive at Exxon-Mobile are going to make more money by protecting the environment instead of taking actions to maximize their profits. (Or, for that matter, the local Jiffy Lube. They would save a fortune by burning the used oil, or dumping it in a stream.)
Okay, I ran out of motivation to refute all of your arguments. However, even if we aren't 100% responsible for global warming; and the uneaten food from your plate doesn't teleport to the people starving in Africa; and the electricity you don't use doesn't magically turn lights on in some cr*ppy hut somewhere; it doesn't mean we can't do a little bit more to help out other people in the world and help protect the environment.