I was mentioning this to Dana offline, but the NRC report on change in emphasis in climate research has been released:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090304/full/458020a.html
Full report here:
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/viewreport.cgi?id=5576
So, when you "debate" skeptics, if you must, point out to them that as far as the policy is concerned, the debate over the science is over, and really to be part of what is relevant at this point the discussion should be on policy options.
In short, skeptics lost the science debate, although "lost" is far too weak an adjective. Crushed might be better, but doesn't really get across how weasily they all look now. It was very amusing to see Schlesinger refuse to engage Christy in a discussion of the science. That would have been like seeing Pauli engage an internet crackpot on whether quantum mechanics is wrong.
