1. As is war too important to be left to the generals, science is too important to be left to scientists.
It's a nice sounding sound-bite, but considerably flawed. In the case of war one should leave the fighting of battles to generals but the decision as to whether to fight and when to seek peace to the politicians. In the case of science, let the scientists do the research, which will determine the "facts", and let the economists (for example) deal with how we are to act based on those facts.
2. Anyone who maintains that "the science is settled" is not a scientist. Therefore, most AGW advocates, even those who claim scientific qualifications, are not scientists. They are religious zealots.
Whenever scientists say that something is settled it means that all the evidence we have points towards a particular conclusion. It is still possible that more data could come along to change this.
3. Religion, as far as is possible, should be kept out of science ... and politics.
I couldn't agree more.
4. The purpose of science is to provide data, information and explanations, not to determine policy.
Again, I agree. That is exactly what we are doing.
Of course, it is very convenient for the political class if there is a perception that policy is driven by scientists. Then, if we have the good fortune to be proven wrong, we can be shown to not only be incompetent but also wicked and thus deflect the blame.
5. In any event, we are not dealing with science here - we are dealing with "uncertainty". This is primarily a political domain which, in a democracy, concerns (or should concern) everyone
Your first sentence makes no sense. It is rather difficult to say that something is 100% certain, and scientists are well aware of this.
6. When scientists start claiming primacy in the political domain, they should be reminded of their places and put firmly back in their boxes.
I'm not sure to what you are referring here.
7. How can you tell whether the (real) scientists are right? Which scientists? And what weight do you accord to different shades of scientific opinion?
By the usual method - keep researching and checking their findings.
8. What if the (most voluble) "scientists" are wrong?
Then a mechanism exists to prove them wrong, sooner or later (see the answer to 7).
N.B. I am not receiving e-mail notifications on this thread (I found it hard enough to register) and so I am not likely to be able to respond in a hurry. Assuming, of course, that I actually want to.