The debate seems to be over, folks.
This isn't to say one side one. But as far as I can tell, the two sides have just stopped paying significant attention to each other. This is likely because the economy is a slightly more pressing issue for everybody right now, but I find it intriguing that both sides have, at this point, decided they've won.
I'm with the skeptics. I can't take the climate "scientists" seriously when, confronted with divergences between predictions and data, suggest the DATA is wrong.
I can't take the scientists seriously when they cherry pick their comparisons. (The average of 19 models is close to surface warming? Great. That's fantastic. That says absolutely fucking nothing about the validity of those models. Particularly when there are more than 19 models running around. I can get the results I want, too, by taking the average of the models that are close enough to real results not to be interpreted as insane.)
I can't take them seriously when they suggest the lack of any alternative explanation is proof for theirs.
I can't take them seriously when the first response to criticisms is to investigate the work history of the person doing the criticizing.
I can't take them seriously when their idea of peer review doesn't involve replication.
On and on and on.
None of which says they're wrong, incidentally. It only says if they're right it's by accident rather than good science. And that's another part of why the debate is over; the "scientists" refuse to debate on those terms. They don't want their models torn apart; they want something to replace them. And that's not a debate the skeptics generally want to have.
Constructive destruction is the heart of skepticism, and why a skeptic isn't going to take you up on a bet that warming won't occur. Because they don't know. And all they're saying is that you don't know either.