I'm not against data (though in the case of climate science, much of said data lacks accuracy, precision, or both), I merely question the methodology used in most cases, the selective use of data (specifically, ignoring data which disagrees with the apparently pre-arrived at conclusion), and the conclusions reached when poor data and poorer methods were used.
Your use of the word "denialists" seems to indicate you have a strongly-held belief, which makes reasonable argument impossible. Thus, we cannot explore tree ring data and atmospheric data which contradict ground station data, nor can we discuss ice core data, which is wholly lacking in the requisite precision to compare year-over-year, decade-over-decade, or even century-over-century values for either temperature or atmospheric composition. We cannot rationally debate the varying degrees of inaccuracy introduced into ground station data prior to the wide-scale deployment of computerized, standardized measurement. There are a whole host of perfectly valid issues with current data collection, methodologies, modeling techniques, and other aspects of climatology that become off limits the moment it becomes a topic of belief rather than a topic of rational discussion and debate.
I'm neither a religious zealot nor an oil company shill. I'm a scientifically minded, well informed individual whose only belief is that good science leads to truth. That I take issue with various aspects of modern climatology should not lead anyone to the conclusion that I'm the one who's somehow closed to a given thinking. Rather, it should lead one to consider whether those issues are valid and whether the popular way of thinking is actually based on good science. I'm of the opinion that much of the current work in climatology is based on a house of cards. I also recognize that poor data and poor methods sometimes still wind up leading to some truth. As such, I neither support nor reject the popular thinking on climate change as it relates to human beings' effects thereon. I do most certainly reject the idea that any of this is conclusive or that it's based on good science.
It isn't, and that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, either.
That said, I think most environmentalists are making the wrong argument. Rather than trying to convince the world that driving a car is destroying the planet, focus on the obvious, visible, irrefutable evidence we have of local environmental damage caused by human beings. Find me one AGW skeptic who doesn't think coal slurry and smog are real threats to the local environment and the humans who inhabit it. Find me one single AGW skeptic who doesn't think that fossil fuels are a limited resource which is becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to extract. There are plenty of angles to approach this where nearly everyone will agree, allowing progress to be made.
What I've found, however, is that many who hold firm belief in AGW demand all others also believe. This strikes me as religious zealotry; not evidence of good science. I see some (yet far less) of this from supporters of the Theory of Evolution (of which I am one). However, far more often, for supporters of the ToE, there's a genuine attempt to discuss specific complaints or questions. There's also plenty of specific, reproducible scientific evidence they're able to cite. This all seems quite absent anytime someone questions AGW dogma which leads me to think that perhaps there's less confidence in the science behind AGW than there is confidence in the groupthink of its non-scientist supporters.