I have to disagree - all we can say is that, all other things being equal, we can expect to an increase in average global temperature as a result of increased C02 levels. We cannot say for a 'fact' that all things (average albedo, solar output etc etc) will remain equal, nor can we say with certainty how extensive the expected rise will be.
It's your prerogative to disagree with facts if you like.Doesn't make you look good, but it's your choice.
I fail to see how applying basic science and caution " doesn't make me look good". Global warming by definition cannot be a scientific fact - it hasn't happened yet.
I think it is actually a recorded and generally acknowledged fact, recent evidence suggesting the migration of numerous species to unprecedented northern climes suggests warming to be a fact. Also the fact that UK mariners have rowed to the magnetic north pole this very day across seaways that have been previously solid ice suggests that the consequences of an average temperature rise are a reality. Whether this will result in a lasting change instate for the ecology and environment is less understood - ice sheets have been advancing and retreating with inconsistent regularity over the last million years or so.
Err exactly - we don't know (yet) with any certainty whether the small increases we have witnessed are due to natural variation or MMGW.
Though a global rise in average temperature due to greenhouse gases (in other words MMGW) is highly likely - that does not make it a fact.
I suspect there are natural fluctuations in the Earth's environmental that have been temporarily accelerated by fossil fuel burning and intensive agricultural practices. I do not think they will have any long term impacts on the planet but may cause a few 'inconveniences' to humanity. 150 years of industrialization has still only produced a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases that many of the major volcanic events in history have produced. Toba being the most recent -
Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suspect you are right - but it doesn't make it a fact. 
Indeed - I think the question we really need to ask is, given a rise in temperature is likely (ie MMGW), though not yet a fact, do we get better value by spending money to make it less likely / smaller in scale, or by spending money to alleviate any likely affects.
I think we need to ignore both and concentrate on developing alternatives to fossil fuel as they are finite. I suspect the political consequences of their decreasing availability will present a greater, immediate threat to humanity that the environmental one.
I really don't get this idea that fossil fuels are going to run out - get a lot more expensive yes, but I just can't see this shortage of hydrocarbons. (but then I expect to see the commercial exploitation of space in the next 50 years)
I would have thought lack of fresh water was a bigger immediate priority than global warming (though the two are obviously interrelated to some extent), but that's a whole different argument.
I think there is much more coal in the ground than oil, you cannot however run an internal combustion engine on coal. With well over half of the world population living in the rapidly industrialising countries of Asia with an ever expanding middle class and its associated desire for personal transport - demand for oil will very soon outstrip supply. The political problems this will produce ( just look at Iraq and Libya as very small and preliminary examples) will impact global populations quicker and more violently than any associated environmental consequences. Unless hydrogen fuel cells can be inexpensively realised or uber efficient power cells for cars produced then the competition for the 'black stuff' is going to lead to some serious conflicts across the globe. Room temperature super conductors are where the immediate future lies apparently, once these have been produced a whole new raft of efficient and clean energy production can begin. If I were BP I know that's where I would be directing my research budget...