If I had a spare week I'd respond to every point in this..
The only point I'd make is for your comment "Why do they refuse to debate, if the evidence is so damn compelling.?? Perhaps its because the few that have debated, have been decimated."
Scientists jobs aren't to get on stage and debate with people. Look at what happened with Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate. You will still have thousands of people going "nope, Ken is totally correct.. Bill Nye has no idea, he was decimated".
Scientists go get data, see if it stands up against what they are testing then present it for peer review and eventually have that work published. There job isn't to form debate teams to argue points with civilians who don't understand a fraction of what they are saying. The evidence is compelling but like every facet of our world, it is not as simple as "this happens because of this and only this". Any debate would be severely limited in nature to a point where it just simply wouldn't work.
Scientists specialise in a field, if a scientist was on stage debating climate change there is no way that the individual scientists could answers all the questions that any anti-climate debater would argue. Thus with flawed logic clearly the scientist has no real idea and they must be lying.
It's purely too dense a topic for 2 people to discuss in a debate, and if more people are included then it usually ends with climate deniers screaming questions at the scientists.
Also about the blog thing. If you want scientific data DON'T ever read blogs, read the scientific journals pertaining to your topic of interest.
If you want the information, read the journal articles not blog pieces.
http://www.sciencedomain.org/journal-home.php?id=10
http://www.scirp.org/journal/acs/
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
http://omicsonline.org/earth-science-climatic-change.php
http://link.springer.com/journal/10584
