Debating science has nothing to do with personalities, unless those people wish to post in this thread. Rather, the propositions at issue are two fold:
1) Whether the earth is, in the aggregate, warming
2) Whether that warming trend is fully or partially caused by human emissions of C02.
Rather than talk about personalities or policies, a healthy debate would present evidence for or against those two propositions. And such evidence should be supported by independent research (not just a critique of the research of others).
I have no beef with nuclear power. To the contrary, I think it's a tragedy that nuclear incidents have prevented further development of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear movement has ironically made nuclear power less safe, by preventing newer and safer designs from coming online and upping the cost of new plants.
I'm also not categorically anti fossil fuel. I make my livelihood in the fossil fuel industry and post in a car forum! It needs to be recognized that, global warming or no, all forms of energy generation have environmental and human impact. But energy is essential to humanity thriving. Even if we disagree on climate change, I think we can agree that a robust energy mix is important.
What I'm suggesting has nothing to do with personalities, it has to do with weighing the arguments of people who know much more about the science than you or I, I am sure. If we were to discuss opposing positions on Quantum Physics, we'd have to argue the positions of people who actually understand Quantum Physics.
I think your propositions are completely inadequate. I agree the Earth is warming -- it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. I also assent to the possibility or even likelihood that we are accelerating the warming. So we agree so far as that gets us, I suppose. Beyond that you have questions about policy and the degree to which one accepts the model-based predictions (usually alarmist predictions).
Re science, good science is able to make predictions which are verifiable; almost all the predictions based on the warming models have a woeful record of verification/accuracy. It's really ridiculous with how every missed prediction there's a belated acknowledgment that some of the assumptions must have been wrong but "we'll get it right next time." Freeman Dyson's criticism of alarmism rests on two things: the inherent inaccuracy and unreliability of these models as predictive tools (for example, they either ignore or downplay feedback mechanisms), and the over valuation of the negative impact of increased CO2 on the environment. Rather, he maintains, the biosphere benefits greatly from increased CO2.
Also, re predictions, I think your use of orbital mechanics as an analogy, even a loose analogy, is really misplaced. I work at the place that built and flew the New Horizons spacecraft. We have posters on the wall from 2006 predicting the date and time of the 2015 Pluto flyby to the second, literally. I think the actual flyby was within a couple seconds of the predicted time. At any rate, we understand orbital mechanics with great precision and can predict intercepts with orbiting objects to an almost unbelievable accuracy. Climate models are NOTHING like that. I imagine only the Drake Equation is more sensitive to unknown variables.
I agree with your comments on nuclear power. It's been hobbled by policy, not what has been achievable technologically. Gen 4 nuclear power promises safe power. Hopefully, we can achieve the something like what was promised by the Integral Fast Reactor, before it was cancelled by Clinton at the behest of Hazel O'Leary and climate alarmist John Kerry (how's that for irony) based on specious and inaccurate arguments.