@Norfolk 'n' Goode
It's odd how different people can use the same words to mean different things.
For you, a person is apparently a "fanatic" for pointing out that climate change is an established scientific fact, as confirmed by tens of thousands of working scientists, and as summarized in several reports of the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
Fanaticism is, according to the dictionary definition, behaviour marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion. One of Churchill's pithy statements was that "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". I think both are good definitions.
People such as myself who do have trust in the efficacy of the scientific method, as proven over the centuries, and in the consensus opinion of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, are able to change the subject. Those involved in the actual research are naturally vocal about their field of study, and since they can see the danger the Earth's biosphere is in, are quite "enthusiastic" in beating the drum about the dangers. Perhaps to you that is "fanaticism", but I invite you to consider the possibility that they are acting in good faith, and are vocal for a good reason. I'm not trying to change your opinion here, but if, for the sake of argument, you concede that these scientists actually do believe that the Earth is in danger, would you not say that being enthusiastically (or perhaps a better word would be "urgently") vocal about the causes of the danger is not excessive?
You also use the word "dogma", which means (again according to Merriam-Webster) "1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet ... 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church". Now, I'm guessing that you mean "dogma" in sense 2, as a religious truth handed on from high, and that you think anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is some sort of a new religion invented by scientists for who-knows-what reason. (Yes, I know, one of the standard propaganda points perpetuated by the deniers is that all these scientists are on some sort of a mutually supported gravy train scam, which just goes to show how little they know of the mechanisms of doing science.)
Even though in principle, every scientific result is provisional, there are some scientific facts that are so well established that one might say they do fit under definition 1a: for instance, no serious scientist really doubts the existence of atoms, of the different elements, of magnetism, of electricity, of gravity, nor of some more complex scientific theories (careful now: the scientific use of the word "theory" is different from the everyday one) such as the theory of evolution, because the evidence in favour, and the explanatory power, of such theories is so overwhelming. So, perhaps some such knowledge could indeed be said to be "held as an established opinion".
But let's assume you mean definition 2 instead of definition 1a. Now here is someone who calls the consensus opinion of tens of thousands of actual experts in the field, and the actual data of a world whose average temperature has been warming even faster than the worst-case predictions, "dogma", and presumably thinks the opposite of that is the truth. And based on what expertise, I wonder?
Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, but trying to make you see why those who do have trust in the scientific method and its results have exactly the opposite opinion: that you and the other climate change deniers are the ones who, ironically, believe in an unfounded dogma.
If you really are interested in the reason that experts in the field hold the opinions they do, you could start educating yourself. There are numerous books and online articles available in the field. For a start, you could go to this collection of links: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics, which is a series of articles called "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming".
But I'm guessing that you're not even interested in looking at that, because you really, really do not want any facts to intrude upon what you really, really want to believe, namely, that there is no AGW.
It is only human to want to deny threatening things. You know the classic stages of dealing with grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Deniers are stuck in the first two steps. It does not help, of course, that there are powerful economic interests, such as oil companies, that correctly see the steps necessary to mitigate the effects of AGW as potentially harmful to their profits, and have thus started propaganda operations that have seeded the public conversation with the sorts of tropes that are then enthustiastically parroted by the deniers. (See, for instance, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/27/environment.science and http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business.)
It is interesting to note that most people do not, in fact, believe certain things because they have been presented with evidence and arguments for different viewpoints, have weighed these, and then made a considered judgment among them; and if new evidence is presented, are prepared to consider that, too, and might even change their beliefs as a result. That is not how human nature works, but that is approximately the way the scientific method works. Since scientists are only humans, how can the scientific method work? It works because scientists are each others' worst (or best) critics, and subject all new hypotheses to harsh criticism. (A "hypothesis" is the scientific term for what laymen call a "theory".) All new scientific information goes through the mill of peer-review, and for a hypothesis or theory to be generally accepted, it must hold up very well indeed with all the available data and with the existing body of science.
But most people form their opinions of complex phenomena based on guesses, wishes, hunches, or on what people they trust for one reason or another tell them, and then have a hard time changing their opinions. (Just following ordinary conversations on various subjects is enough to show that there are plenty of people for whom almost complete ignorance of a subject is no hindrance to holding forth at length on it.) The human mind did not evolve to follow the scientific method, but to survive through instinct and hunch in the pre-technological nature. (See article http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5491, "People Believe What They Want".) I suppose that is why so many people, such as yourself, have such an aversion to accepting knowledge gained through the scientific method, especially if such knowledge feels threatening: the brain sometimes rejects threatening information until forced to deal with it. And in the case of AGW, humankind simply cannot wait until every last living person has been forced to see the consequences for himself before starting to mitigate them.
As for "burning the heretics" and "silencing different opinions": oh please. Where, I ask you, has anyone wanted to burn anyone else, or to silence anyone? Criticism, even strong criticism, is not "silencing". Climate change deniers have had the opportunity to give their point of view out of all proportion to the weight of their arguments, partly because most journalists are not scientists, and cannot judge the weight of scientific evidence. This is of course a phenomenon used to advantage by the denialist lobby; if they can keep the "controversy" alive through astroturf organizations, a couple of bought "scientists" and various fools, they can keep up the impression that the facts of the matter are still unsettled.
You say: "And you have the unmitigated gall to use the word science." Oddly enough, that also suits very well as my answer to you.
Oh well, you probably haven't even made it this far. I just thought I'd try.