We skeptics find that some natters are settled in the negative completely like creationism, some provisionally like the steady state theory; we find others mainly true like evolution, but provisional in their parts like how much a role natural selection plays in evolution ; and we yet have to find much confirmation on others like the origin of language. We are open-minded but not credulous.
Climate deniers are hardly skeptics by reason of their not overcoming what the consensus of scientists find to be the evidence. This in not the fallacy of authority, but rather what the inter subjective view is .There surges forth some doubts as to the magnitude up or down. The deniers seem to be reasoning a priori ideologically: some are libertarians who view this this view as due to leftist determination to increase the size of government by giving preference to new energy industries and to tax people even more. Then, too. oil companies don't want to face new competition. Now, why don t they get onto the act?
Why not see that the new industries will make for more and better jobs?
Now, this is no case of the genetic fallacy but of divulging why people oppose themselves thereto and since their argumentation lack merit. They rest on dubious facts.
Now, time and money limit what resources we can spend on investigations. Some matters, like creationism only have the extrinsic need to rebut from the false propaganda. And we give no attention to any propose perpetual motion machine!
I find that the supernatural and the paranormal are of the extrinsic kind; they are what philosopher Paul Kurtz calls the 'Transcendental Temptation."
However, the late great skeptic,Martin Gardner, was a fideistic deist- wishful thinking!
Let us all discuss how we can better use skepticism and how to combat ignorance about science and how it works!