You're being a bit kind to yourself, don't you think? You're skeptical, as are those you agree with, but those you don't agree with are "skeptical".
The climate change debate was a controversial new idea thirty years ago
See, this revisionist stuff drives me crazy. 30 years ago, it was called "global cooling". Now, sophisticated punters call it "climate change", instead of the less sophisticated and more embarrassing flip-flop of "global warming". http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Just call it global warming and admit that 30 years ago, climatologists were wrong. Don't try to obfuscate their lack of perfection (nobody expects perfection anyway) with this "climate change" nonsense of "we knew it all along, see, we predicted climate change 30 years ago!"
"You're being a bit kind to yourself, don't you think? You're skeptical, as are those you agree with, but those you don't agree with are 'skeptical'."
No, not really. There's a difference between being skeptical and using fallacies and rhetoric to cause confusion. I disagree with people who do the latter in the guise of "skepticism".
"See, this revisionist stuff drives me crazy. 30 years ago, it was called "global cooling". Now, sophisticated punters call it "climate change", instead of the less sophisticated and more embarrassing flip-flop of 'global warming'."
What part of "the climate change debate was a controversial new idea" don't you understand? When presented the theory, scientists didn't believe it. They debated many different theories -- global cooling, global warming, temperature cycles, etc. -- and eventually, the data led them to a theory. It's not "revisionist" when new data leads you to change your hypothesis. It's science.
Just call it global warming and admit that 30 years ago, climatologists were wrong. Don't try to obfuscate their lack of perfection (nobody expects perfection anyway) with this "climate change" nonsense of "we knew it all along, see, we predicted climate change 30 years ago!"