RE A)

part 1. Predicting weather is a lot more tough than predicting climate. That line of logic is about a good as creationist logic sighting wholes in the fossil record as proof evolutionary theory is wrong.

part 2. Did you miss all those el nino predictions that were accurate? Those were a result of continuous improvements in climate models.

RE B & C)

I'll trust concerned scientists over corporate greed any day. It is pretty damn obvious how much corporations fight to protect their profits. Many books have been written and the majority of scientists do take global warming seriously. As I said the original work was a simple outgrowth of NASA funded work on Mars and Venus not some left wing anti-capitalist group. Considering Republicans have controlled the executive branch for most of the time this research has been going on, it could hardly be considered the field of choice for government funded research.

So are you one of those that thinks equations that apply from cold thin Mars to hot thick Venus don't apply to just right Earth? Or are you sure Enron and Sunbeam were out to protect the public good and their employees?

You try a little conservative line fact checking:
http://www.sciam.com/2001/1001issue/1001scicit1.html

I work for an industry that suffers from stupid over regulation in some areas, but I'll tell you right now our country is better off with a little too much than none at all as many conservatives seem to favor. The pressures on industry to cut costs are very high these days and any corners that can be cut will be cut and any regulation which could increase costs will be fought.
I have seen an amazing amount of believing what is convenient or favorable to self interest even among scientists when it comes to making their job easier or avoiding an additional bit of work.

Regards,
Mark