Never mind, this guy already got rolled over by the best comments, I have nothing good to say, now. :(

In addition, I think it is worthwhile for everybody to remember that people come here and ask questions… and it is not worthwhile to assume that they advocate the positions that those questions imply. They may simply be trying to find out information.

You have been a voice of calm in this forum. In fact, I've been guilty of being 'snappish' and condescending from time to time, and I look to you as an example of how to approach answering questions here.

You said

Just make sure nobody you know kills himself and in two years it will be over.

My concern for people who might kill themselves extends beyond those few whom I happen to know personally. I'd like to think yours does, too.

Like AstroGeek, I've seen many success stories, both here and among my real-life acquaintances. Regarding the "impossibility" of helping people decide rationally among the conflicting claims with which they're bombarded throughout life, you might wish to check out the method that Arizona State University (ASU) developed for teaching physics in high school (1, 2). The last full paragraph on the first page of this document from ASU is worth quoting:

We want students to have responsibility for their own knowledge. That means, instead of asking the teacher, that they must be able to come up with their OWN arguments [for justifying their beliefs].

I think it’s worthwhile talking about this explicitly with students in class. If they want to be the victims of all kinds of unfounded claims which pervade our society, then they don’t need to pay attention to these things. But if they want to protect themselves from unjustified claims, to be intelligent members of the society, they need to be able to make judgments on their own: they must evaluate evidence to some degree. That includes understanding the STANDARDS of evidence. That helps you evaluate whether someone who claims he’s an expert really IS an expert.

ASU's method is highly successful, indicating that people can indeed be taught to assess claims rationally.

Deviating a bit from the topic, ASU's method is also relevant to something that debunkers often say (often in quite a condescending tone) to those who fear 2012: "Do your own research, and you won't be afraid". Usually, the victim of 2012aphobia has done his or her own research: that's the problem. He or she has made the effort to find out what's going on, and has thereby become familiar with all sorts of competing claims about 2012. Unfortunately, he or she doesn't know how to assess them. Learning to do so takes time, which can be reduced considerably if the student is guided by knowledgeable people who are genuinely and obviously acting in the student's best interest.

This site exists to debunk these rumors. It is set up as a resource that can be used by parents or teachers or others to address the question of a 2012 doomsday in a facts-based manner.

Just look through the forums and you will find several success stories.

So you can't debunk the "2012 Doomsday" unless you somehow manage to genetically modify the whole human race to be more rational. Just make sure nobody you know kills himself and in two years it will be over.