If you would allow me, I would like to address three points here:
Off the bat, you mention MWP and problems with scientific models as well as some general unhappiness with how global warming is presented, including its effects on the weather. First off, equating today’s conditions with the MWP is dangerous. I know you are probably getting sick of hearing the word ‘studies’ but they do theorize on probable causes (Reduced geothermic activity and increased solar activity) as well as the fact that temperatures then may not have been as high as they are now. Taking that into consideration, if the influences on climate are not the same today, can you then claim that the warming effect today is natural?
Next up, scientific models. They change with new information. They change with new knowledge. Asking for accuracy of predictive models is not feasible. This extends to weather predictions. Scientists are human. The best you can get is the best possible guess with the data available.
Also, please do not dwell on how global warming makes some places colder and hence it is all fake. Global warming is an average observable temperature rise, with varying local effects. Best assumption now is that it will cause weathers in all extremes. It probably won’t stop snowing, but it probably won’t snow the same way it did for years before. That should be alarming as it is.
An ‘all you scientists…’ tone is notable unhelpful. Scientists aren’t a hive mind, constantly in action to fool the masses. Scientists span the globe, covering all religions, races and fields of expertise. To suggest the actions of some represent the whole is insanity. Scientists research, peer-review, and may arrive at a generally accepted consensus. As we should.
As an addition to all of the above, science is not a religion (excuse those who think it is), it is a process; a method. Today’s conclusions may be tomorrow’s contradictions. Humanity pushes forward, learning new things, finding new data, uncovering new secrets. Science learns, like all of us. One cannot claim that errors made years ago somehow invalidates all research made today.
Sure, we should not banish opinions from public discourse, but giving all opinions equal footing is something we do not do in life in the first place. Especially when backed by people who very well should know more about the topic than anyone else. Dissenting results are always present of course, however the present, global conclusion is that global warming is a clear danger to the long term survival of humanity.
As a final note, I will ask what you think is the fair price to pay for being right? Let us take all ends of the argument:
If you are right, and nothing comes of it, we spend money and resources making the world cleaner.
If you believe in global warming but don’t think we can do anything about it, then we all die without trying.
If the global consensus is right, and we do something about it, maybe, just maybe we survive this and come out of this better than before.
Be skeptical, be inquisitive, question the science. Don’t forget that there will always be the possibility that you may just be wrong. And the stakes for this is not something you should bet on.