What could possibly be a rational basis for rejecting climate science? Here is my logic (thus not opinion) if the anthropogenic global heating AGH deniers actually do not have any rational climate science basis for rejecting anthropogenic global heating then everyone should understand that their position is baseless.

It would seem that consistent failure by global heating deniers to provide a rational basis for their rejection of climate science would form sufficient evidence that no such rational basis exists.

I am diligently striving to use logical analysis to cut to the heart of the truth about global heating in such a way that all true skeptics (not those hired to lie) will immediately see the light of the truth. 

I make this post so that all global heating deniers will be provided an opportunity to present their side. 

If such a rational basis exists, then it can be provided. If it cannot be provided then no such rational basis exists. If no such rational basis for rejecting climate science exists then the matter of: anthropogenic global heating (AGH) is concluded in closure. 

3C ± 1.5C for every doubling of CO2 plus the following 100 PPM spike in global CO2 since 1950 really seem to explain the temperature increase. 

If we apply climate sensitivity analysis to the current level of atmospheric CO2 we find that this increase of CO2 predicts a temperature equilibrium of +1.65C: 3 * log2(410 / 280) = 1.65C. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
If the issue is assessed on other grounds than science ones there can be rational reasons to reject climate science. e.g. if it is being assessed with respect to how addressing versus not addressing AGW impacts costs, competitiveness and profitability of specific business enterprises then rejecting climate science and encouraging other business operators as well as governments, courts and regulators to reject it, to avoid compliance costs of addressing it appears rational. The advice given by lawyers to people and companies facing lawsuits to admit no responsibility and seek to undermine the plaintiff's arguments, including questioning the veracity of expert witnesses is not irrational. Unethical perhaps, but it is not irrational.