Ok, here we go:
"1) Far too many resources go into computational modelling in comparison to those deployed for observational science."
This is an interesting claim. On what is it based? Certainly I agree that observation is very important - and predictions of future climate conditions will be more accurate if they are derived from more accurate and complete data.
So, what information do you have, regarding the resources (financial, manpower, and others) being expended on both activities? I presume you have some, since you have drawn a conclusion which could only be valid if based on such information.
"2) I am not sure about ACC. Ten years ago I was convinced. Now, however, I think that we are only just beginning to realise how complicated the system is."
The scientific consensus is still overwhelming. Even in spite of your wavering, are you familiar with the precautionary principle?
"3) I was very disappointed with the Climate Gate emails"
I agree, however this doesn't change much in reality. The scientific consensus on the key points* remains strong.
*These being: (a) climate change is a problem which threatens our environment and our society; (b) humanity has been, and still is, one of the major causes of climate change; (c) we can and must, do something to tackle it; (d) time to do this is limited.
"4) with Michael Mann's apparently false standardisation PCA of the last century’s temperature figures"
I am not a scierntist. Howerver it is my understanding that Dr. Mann faced several investigations over these issues and was cleared of any wrongdoing.
"5.1) with the disappearance of the MWP (and RWP) from Briffa's work."
I am not a scientist and do not recognise the acronyms / initials you are using.
"5.2) The tree ring discontinuity problem remains."
I believe that is so. Hopefully further research will help in that area.
"6) The global temperature record of the last ten or so years has also defied all of the preceding dire predictions (NOTE THE WORD DIRE)
It was predicted that temperatures would rise. They are rising. The period July 2014–June 2015 was globally the warmest 12-month period in the entire 136-year period of record. In 136 years, the hottest 12-month period is the one we just had. The graph is trending in the predicted direction. I think this is a matter of concern.
You seem to have the view that if I say "I bet Chelsea will thrash Arsenal", and then the score is 3-1 to Chelsea, my prediction was 100% wrong.
"7) Some people will not allow any doubt to enter their minds on the topic - it has almost become an article of faith. I trust that those who truly embrace the scientific method will at least seriously question some of the points I make above."
What if it's not an issue of faith, but an issue of risk analysis? For me, the risk of saying "oh, well, the science is only 80% accurate, so we can just take the risk and just keep polluting" is the greatest potential risk. I'd much rather support efforts to make human activity less environmentally harmful, even if it turns out that humanity wouldn't have been completely annihilated if I hadn't bothered.
Doesn't that make sense?