When someone tells you the debate is over you should see a red flag. If they have then winning argument, and they know it, they would be open to debate you any time anywhere because they know they will win the debate, and prove that your counter arguments are weak and will fail. When someone tells you the time for debate is over it is because they don't want to debate because they either do not have the inclination to bother debating you (which sounds an awful lot like fascism; do it my way or else!) or they cannot win and do not want to be found out.
But the global warming crowd insists the debate is over. They insist 'scientists' all agree. How do you you know the debate is over? Where you there? Did you see the final global warming debate on CNN and the rest of us missed it? No. Do you know with certitude that all scientists (or even most) agree? Have you seen a list of scientists around the world, their relevant credentials and their 'vote' on the validity of anthropomorphic global warming? No.
So why are you assuming that the liberal media are being honest? Are you that naive? To accept everything that the media, including the news media and Hollywood, tells you is truth is naive at best and self-defeating at worst. You set yourself up for a life in an Orwellian dystopia with such an attitude. You serve yourself better by questioning everything. Of course that means with a critical thinking skepticism. Obviously there is truth in every person, including the media. But there are also lies in every person and there is also bias in every person. Bias is universal. And so too it seems, is confirmation bias, which the media counts on their repetition of the global warming mantra for sustaining public belief. That's what is keeping you from rational thought on global warming.
Let me pose a few what-ifs for you.
What if you asked a sports announcer who was going to win the next Superbowl, and the guy you asked just got 8 of 14 games right in last weeks regular season game predicitions. He's 57% accurate about the immediate future and you are asking him to predict much farther into the future. So why is it that people who cannot get the weather correct more than say 3-5 days into the future have such supposed certitude of what weather is going to be like in 100 years?
What if you knew that the earth has been through stages of global Ice Ages and near-global tropical conditions for millions of years, that predate humans and that such enormous changes are cyclical and on a scale that far exceeds human capacity to impact our earth? What if you knew our average global temperature are at or near multi-epochal lows? Go ahead, look it up. You'll be surprised by some of what you find.
What if you questioned the 'conventional wisdom' of global warming? What if you did research into both points of view to find the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments? If you were right, you'd be better equipped to argue with both global warming skeptics like myself (how do you think I ended up here?). And if you were wrong, what then? Would you have to stop hanging out with your friends? Would life be over? Or would you be forced to question everything you thought you believed? Or maybe just some of it? There's no harm in engaging in the exercise of real research - unless you are just afraid of what you might find.