Unfortunately, it has been my experience that skeptics make a business out of debunking at the expense of both truth and honesty.
Giving them the numbers would not change their worldview, their ethics, nor their business of debunking.
While scientists may be skeptical and spend their time looking for evidence to prove, or disprove. a hypothesis and related theory, most modern day 'skeptics' are actually classical pseudo-skeptics. Most are not scientists, most have little to no scientific background worth mentioning (background as in - peer reviewed published articles, research grants, government and privately funded research teams, world-wide collaboration work, advanced degrees) and you will often not find their C.V.'s online listing these accomplishments and connections.
I was recently slandered in an online science magazine by a well-known skeptic who flat out lied about the results of a prediction I made in a local, and fun, arts and entertainment magazine. The predictions were edited for the reading audience and were not reported as completely as they might have been, nor did I accomplish these predictions with the help of a team in a lab with controls.
They seemed to be an easy target for a professional skeptic, in this case, a person who was also willing to lie in order to make a point. The mistake this skeptic made was that he did not even bother to verify anything that he was writing (and fibbing about) and he did not even bother to consider the prediction as having a chance of being correct, nor look for any evidence of it that was easily available in online sources. He simply added his own words to the prediction, thereby creating something I did not predict, and declared "See, this prediction is obviously WRONG."
The fact that this science magazine allows this skeptic to even publish what he terms "science-based" research is a kind of fraud.
When it happened, I was upset, - not just because it slandered me and my business - but because I have worked as an assistant to the editor in chief of a science and engineering journal, and I have edited numerous science papers and manuscripts, I have organized conferences and symposia for actual scientists, including extremely accomplished, highest prizewinning scientists ... and I personally previously had no experience with "skeptics" -- those people who when carefully looked at prove to be non-scientists who are actually dogmatic ideologists simply posing as voices for championing scientific thinking...
The work of scientists is time consuming, it is difficult, it takes careful attention to detail, it takes working well with other people, it takes time, and it takes oodles of money. Some rhetoric happy B.A. or English Ph.D's with a dogmatic non-scientific ideologies and no desire to do any peer-reviewed research, or even the legally expected journalistic research - certainly do no merit any standing as legitimate voices in ANY scientific community.
Most modern skeptics not only do not understand true science is not a dogmatic ideology - they also do not understand the true nature of skeptical thinking.
They do not need to be given any further data to lie about.