Arguing against climate change is like arguing the world is flat. There should be no surprise it is often treated with contempt. Climate change is not opinion but a carefully reasoned and empirically identified set of probabilities. Oh and lets use the real words not the weasel words of “climate change” – the issue is the “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
When was it that the mainstream belief changed from the world being flat, to the world been round ? was it, once more people than not believed it was round ? this would mean that anyone with a ridiculous argument will be in the minority and thus end up questioning the mainstream eventually, but just remember it was the “round worlders” who were first to challenge the mainstream.
Those with genuine arguments questioning an aspect of the research are listened to, considered and sometimes change the way we look at the enhanced greenhouse effect. The only way to question a carefully reasoned and empirically identified set of probabilities is with new carefully reasoned and empirically identified set of probabilities – this does not come from the sceptics with very few exceptions.
Anyone who argues against a policy without proposing an alternative to reach the same ends is not arguing about the policy but the reasons for the policy, and since most often they do not present their argument for their dismissal of the reasons for the policy, then they do deserve contempt if not demonization, ostracizing and labelling (which is a big part of their own behaviour).
Just face it, the level of maturity, knowledge and a desire to uncover the truth does not exist in the majority of people taking a position against either the enhanced greenhouse effect or in fact the policies presented to combat them.
Oh, and if you review the public debate you will see that it is those that argue against climate change doing the most of the demonising, ostracising and labelling – eg; anti-capitalist, left wing plot, communists etc…