Three strikes:
1.Climate models are validated by testing them against historical data. They do indeed recreate past trends quite well, when forced with both the known cooling effects of volcanoes and soot aerosols from human activity, plus the known warming effects of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases.
2. The current trends are already well outside the bounds of natural variability, and are indeed "unusual."
3. There is no conflict of interest in getting research grants from the National Science Foundation. (Getting paid by Exxon to go around nitpicking and promoting doubt and mistrust of scientists might be a conflict of interest, but not NSF.) How exactly do you propose that the scientists should pay for their research, all the satellites, spectrographs, LIDAR sensors, ocean data buoys, flights into the eye of hurricanes, etc.?
Why would the government try to bias research into creating a problem that the government is clearly having a hard time addressing? Wouldn't their life have been easier by not manufacturing a crisis for themselves in the first place?
This is where the reasoning breaks down. You have to descend into conspiracy theories that the US government, including the Bush administration, paid to have scientists make up a big problem, just so the UN could start global taxation - or something like that. Huh? Neither Bush nor Obama would stand to gain anything by making the UN more powerful at the expense of the US.

I'll add one more comment on "nor will [any virus] ever be" totally eradicated. We're far along in pushing polio to eradication from the human population as well - another virus spread only person to person and lacking any reservoir outside the human body. There have been frustrations and setbacks in the final stages, but there's still a chance that polio can be completely controlled. If so, then once again we'll have to debate whether to preserve samples in two guarded freezers (probably yes, again, for future research.)

Well put. The existence of an effective vaccine lowers the severity of the hypothetical threat of someone stealing the frozen virus from a lab guarded by the military *and* then succeeding in getting it back into the population spreading out of control.
Neither painkillers nor antibiotics are effective against any viral infection (other than easing the pain). However we do have several anti-viral treatments now, such as Tamiflu and anti-retrovirals. None of these were available when smallpox was at large, so there's no evidence whether they're effective for that, but they might work.

That seems to miss the point: smallpox cannot survive outside of the human body, except in a medical lab freezer. The virus has indeed been eradicated in the population. The only reason to qualify this success is the decision to preserve samples for potential research reasons. That choice seems pretty compelling: if the two lab samples were killed, the virus would indeed be extinct and unrecoverable. The threat would be gone, but so would the potential medical knowledge.

Why do you say it is "almost certain" that terrorist groups have the virus? The two labs keeping it in deep freeze are operated and guarded by the military in each country, and would be treated as more sensitive than a nuclear weapon. The risk is not zero, but "almost certain" is far too pessimistic.