Too many posts to comment on portions individually. I'll just add that there is something between "facts" and "opinions/beliefs" called "theory" or perhaps "hypothesis." We include all the best facts we can find in our working hypotheses, and adjust them as new facts come to light and are tested and validated. My current working hypothesis, based on my reading of scientific evidence, is that human-induced climate change is real and is a problem. (Yes, I've looked at the sunspot theory. I don't find it compelling, and neither do many other scientists who've also looked at the available evidence.) Regarding projections, no one can know the future, but one of the main goals of science is to attempt valid predictions. Models can be tested, validated, and improved. It makes sense to build the best models we can and to try to act appropriately based on their predictions, knowing that we may have to change the models as new facts come to light.
Meanwhile, we are left with the question of what actions to take
now. I'm repeating myself, but given the obvious tendency most people have to base their decisions on personal costs, e.g. the cost of solar panels vs. the cost of purchased energy generated by coal or nuclear plants, if the long-term costs of generating power by various means are not passed on to the consumer, consumers will continue to make decisions with long-term detrimental effects for short-term reasons. None of the power generation vendors are going to be the first to include the costs of pollution mitigation and cleanup in their consumer prices, because that would create a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. Again, this is where government regulation is appropriate.
Of course, it's much more fun to rail on about how others are trying to deny one's personal liberties than to address whether government regulation should enforce the free market by requiring all costs to be included in a consumer commodity.
The only other thing I'll add is that I've heard quite a large number of Muslims speaking out against the radical actions of the violent minority. They don't tend to get much air time in the U.S. They make the situation much more complex. A simple "news" story that plays up the role of the fanatics is more catchy and probably sells more advertising.
