A Climate Science Challenge

Scott Adams writes another article on Climate Science, and issues a challenge.  I have my own.  I'm deeply distrustful of anything that smacks of "all the cool kids agree with it" logic.  As it stands, the so-called consensus looks to me like no more than a progressive excuse to force social and economic changes that fit a political agenda.  I don't care about any "consensus" on this issue.  Consensus and Science are contradictions in terms. 

To dissuade me from my skepticism, I'd like the following addressed: 

1. Prove your measurements.  Is the Earth actually warming? Be prepared to show your data and defend the methodology used to gather it.  Be able to address any objections to the validity of those measures. Provide a list of factors that could invalidate the measures and list ways in which these factors have been mitigated.  Any data smoothing or manipulation needs to be transparent and defended.  
2. Back up your model.  Explain the mechanism that indicates that any measured change above is caused by atmospheric carbon variation.  Your models must account for solar activity and previous historical (and prehistoric) evidence that the Earth has changed climate many times in the past, prior to any industrialized human activity.  A reason for previous warm periods must be provided along with an explaination of why those factors are not in effect now (assuming you can defend 1 above). 
3. Prove that human activity accounts for the conclusions in your model above.  If carbon emissions account for the warming (assuming 1 and 2 above have been covered), provide proof that natural causes do not account for the carbon increases.  A geologically active planet creates carbon emissions (volcanos, anyone?), and any warming activity, such as a change in solar output, will release captured carbon in the soil.  Be prepared to prove that any increase in atmospheric carbon is the cause, and not the result, of warming activity.  
4. Prove that we can do anything about it, and that the solution is worth the cost.  This argument must accommodate political, economic and engineering factors.  Does crippling Western economies to achieve climate goals accomplish anything when developing economies in China, India and elsewhere show no willingness to sign up for limits?  How many unemployed people, sitting in the dark and cold without sufficient power, balance whatever benefits can be achieved?  How many industries that shut down due to increasing energy prices weigh against an uncertain improvement?  Idealism has no place in this discussion.  Explain how a balance can be achieved here. 
5. Prove that a warmer climate really is a problem.  Historical records show much warmer periods in European history, with evidence of agriculture far further north than today.  History indicates that this was a benefit rather than a problem. Provide a business and social case as to why warmer weather in higher latitudes is a problem. Recall that civilizations and cities built too close to geographically active areas have been destroyed and rebuilt many times in the past.  The Earth is not stable.  
6. Bonus question: if carbon-emitting power is the problem, why are the same people predicting carbon-based gloom and doom also the same people who oppose nuclear power, the only practical non-emitting source of electrical power, to charge the batteries for all these electric cars and stuff.  Research into better nuclear power generation has been crippled for decades because of environmental objections.  If an atmosphere full of carbon is doomsday, shouldn't a little carefully stored radioactive waste and a slight risk from well managed nuclear power plants be a better option? Explain why not. *

I'm open minded here.  I'm an engineer with 30+ years experience in data architecture and analysis, so I can probably follow along.  Make an argument in intelligent layman's terms.  I'm old enough to remember scientists panicking over global COOLING and a new ice age.  

* Note: for a variety of reasons, I prefer natural gas electrical generation from fracking over nuclear, including those discussed here.  Still, the questions are valid for those seeking a zero-emissions electricity source.