Re: Scientists, eh!
"I'm quite capable of changing my mind in the climate change debate should a suitable argument be presented."
I find that statement to be rather unlikely.
If you believe that humans are a relevant contributing factor in the climate; that our activity can and does have an effect, then you already believe that the evidence is overwhelming - that 'AGW' is a suitably well-established fact.
If, on the other hand, you believe that either the climate is not changing or, that if it is, humans are not a relevant contributing factor, then you do not accept the evidence that has already been presented or do not believe that evidence even has been presented at all.
In some ways, it's similar to the evolution-vs-creation debate. I don't mean to imply that those who deny that humans are a cause of climate change are necessarily fundamentalist Christians (because that is simply not true*), but often the argument sounds the same, with those who believe it is true saying "the evidence is in and it's overwhelming!" while the other side says "show me the evidence!".
Its no wonder the public is so intractable and so whichever side you are on, my cowardly friend, as you say you will change your mind (rather than make it up) I can't see that that is all that likely - you either believe the evidence is overwhelming and so it would take a lot to get you to discount it or you don't trust/accept the evidence that has been so far claimed, in which case more evidence you don't accept is not going to do anything.
And this is the problem - those who believe it is real cry that the deniers side is blindly ignoring good evidence, while those who do not believe it is real cry that the believers are blindly accepting bad evidence.
* - Although evangelical Christians are least likely to believe in AGW, it is also correlated with age, education, and where you live, with the most likely to reject AGW being a 65+ evangelical Christian living in the rural south. Ref & ref.