Is this Australian (presumably) citizen accurate in his assessment of climate skepticism?

The "believers" in AGW are deniers of real science. They ignore modern findings in science and rely on outdated models that have never predicted anything correct so far.

It's sad that so much time and money is wasted on what has turned out to be a giant fraud. The "scientists" supplying the data have admitted that they lied in order to show warming trends. They were paid lots of money to lie, so I guess they have their motives in order.

Anyone on this site who pushes the AGW hoax is paid to do so by big oil and a myriad of environmental and climate organizations. Sad but true...

It will go down as the biggest fraud in our history.

Mr Abbott is certainly (along with several of the leading members of the Liberal party, like Lindsey Tanner) in the skeptic camp, but this is not the opinion of the entire opposition as is borne out but the fact that they have their own version of the ETS.

That they have an ETS plan, given the public statements of their leader suggest that the majority think there is something to AGW, and given the the Liberal leadership has changed 3 times in 3 years they are a divided party at the best of times.

True scepticism is admirable. I am a sceptic an after reviewing the fact acknowledge the reality of climate change. Denialism however is the result of greed apathy and misantropy and is tantamount to being criminal

It's difficult.

The term 'climate change skeptic' is regularly used for people who are not scientific skeptics, they simply refuse to believe in global warming because of their preconceived notions and they lie and misrepresent.

In most cases 'climate change skeptics' are not scientifically skeptical, they are ideologically skeptical. Check the (wrong) series of arguments you see on here about how 'it's the Sun,' 'it snowed here,' 'it's been cooling since 1998!' etc.

Sure, real scientific skepticism should be taught. But the sensible skeptical arguments are generally quite technical; do we teach skepticism of Newtonian dymanics in classroom because maybe MOND, GR or a GUT might be better? No, because general relativity and string theory are very complicated.

The sensible skeptical arguments should be taught, but they would have to be taught qualitatively and the level of supporting evidence made clear.

I am the sanest person in the world.

Really I am. When people of Ottawa Mike's ilk question mine reality...well, I know I'm doing just fine.

Always question people who claim to thave authority.

No. Those who consider themselves to be "skeptics" are usually "deniers". They completely deny established science. Scientists are the real "skeptics".