You stitch together a long string of things which for a lot of people seem to summarise the debate from the anti side. But it is a scatter gun approach and has little impact because it doesn't deal with the scientific facts.
How does the scientific facts about CO2 dismantle economies? They where still the facts long before there where any economies.
A low carbon economy is a great goal and should be a major focus of research. Maybe peak oil has passed you by , but for a lot of people it hasn't and for the future generations it will be very real.
How do you get change in investment decisions?. The private sector is notoriously slow and seeks subsidies at every turn to be encouraged to do most infrastructure work. Personally I prefer the cap and trade system , but that would be the economist in me coming out.
The crying wolf episodes of the past have led to disengagement . This is serious lesson and if you follow the debate in the new media about it you will see it being discussed. The misdirection into particular weather events shows the dumbing down of the debate. However it is something that must be explained along with the uncertainties that may exist. The basic science has not gone away.
The use of exaggerated imagery such as "imminent AGW apocalypse" somehow seems to fly in the face of the anti AGWers that say we are facing a coming ice age. Isn't this the same thing exaggerated imagery , though from the anti mobs it must be ok ( ! ) .
You string more things together that are an attempt to show a "whole" , such as climate gate , corrupted peer review process etc etc. However each individually have been shown to not be as you say ie There is no climate gate smoking gun.
Your constructed narrative is a good try , but the facts are the facts.
We have a carbon based economy. Our major byproduct is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its getting warmer. The Oceans are getting warmer. Hot water has a larger volume than cold water. The sea level is rising.
