[imtringued]

They get ridiculed because they argue in bad faith with bad or even made up references and data.

Their predictions are basically useless. Decades ago these "debators" were arguing in favor of global cooling because solar activity is going down yet what we got is record temperatures after record temperatures practically every single year.

Even with correct data they intentionally misinterpret it or omit crucial factors. For example a graph where solar insolation, co2 levels and global temperatures are listed they remove the solar insolation data and then argue that there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures or state that past CO2 levels have been higher while ignoring that over the time of millions of years solar insolation has increased by a few percentage points and it takes less CO2 today to cause the same level of warming Vs millions of years ago.

Let's assume there was a "debate", why is one side acting in such a way? You would have to put on a tinfoil hat and explain this by saying something ridiculous like "the green lobby routinely funds junk science to discredit climate skeptics".