Debate with these people is impossible...

All of the deniers- we refuse to grace them with their chosen name, "skeptics"- are dangerous for they create a false debate around the existence of climate change and divert attention from the real debate: "What are we going to do about climate change?".

-- excerpted from "Hall of shame | Rising Tide UK"

Remember what I've said before about the people who throw around this term "denier"?  They've indicated a cessation in their own critical thinking.  Anthropogenic climate change should not be and should never be something to be believed in.  Nor should it be something that is not believed in.  I will credit the so-called "Separation of Church and State" crowd with the notion that matters of faith and matters of science should not co-mingle.

If I deny ACC, does that mean you believe in it?

On the other hand, if, based upon the evidence I've seen so far, such as:

• The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph that was published in 1998 by Professor Mann, whom refused to share either the raw data or his model upon which he drew his conclusion for years, even though the study was funded with taxpayers dollars.  In 2005, he made available the source code to the model.  When it was released for scientists to peer review, their criticisms of the methodology were reinforced by a third-party panel assembled at the behest of members of Congress. 
• The e-mail scandal that wasn't a scandal, I guess, at the University of East Anglia, with excerpts describing a massaging of the collected data and collusion to suppress a view at odds with the grant recipients' money-maker.
• Thousands of surface temperature monitoring stations across the U.S. with data corrupted by their placement next to A/C exhaust fans, asphalt parking lots, etc.
• The uncomfortable truth that some of the same scientists who tell us with certainty that the globe is warming were telling us, with similar certainty, that the globe was entering into another ice age. Granted, scientists do draw the wrong conclusions from data sometimes, but I've not heard a compelling argument in which the scientist does the following:
• Acknowledge he/she was wrong.
• Do a little bit of introspection as to why he/she arrived at the first conclusion, now regarded as erroneous, and what assumptions were incorrect, and what outlier evidence incorrectly discarded.
• Show how, upon correcting these flaws, the new conclusion is supported

Those are just some examples, but you get my point.  But the ACC proponents have moved from "Here is the evidence to support our hypothesis" to "You must believe!" or "Just trust us, we know we're right!"

Sorry, I'm an engineer.  The just-trust-me explanation only works for that one area where I acknowledge science, logic, and reason are useless to me.

 .
 .
 .
 .

Women.