The real problem with the climate change debate (and the problem with the expensive laws/regulations being passed) is that while *someone* is right about the whole thing, they don't know WHY they're right, they can't PROVE it, and any attempt to discuss it is either met with derision or accompanied with a call for everyone else to start paying for a "solution" that somehow just seems to be giving either the govt or certain out of work politicians all the money in return for pretty much nothing.
Even if Al Gore is RIGHT, nobody is going to listen to him because his approach is to say everyone else is trying to kill the planet and they should fork over billions of dollars, which he will be happy to help with in exchange for a small fee. Even if the most skeptical of "denialists" is right, their arguments and rationale will never be considered because he will be instantly drowned out by insane charges that his attempt to think things through is really a desire to kill the planet, so the denialist should shut up and give money to... someone else... who will do... something nobody understands... with the money.
The answer is out there but it can't be proven yet and the discussion is drowned out by really stupid claims that everyone with an opposing conclusion is trying to destroy everything. That has to be the stupidest claim on the planet but it sure seems to be the first argument used on a lot of topics (listing them and quoting people will of course violate rule #14)