Before my comment is deleted I'd like to remind moderators that this submission is filtered as social science, and my comment is therefore on-topic. I wrote this as a response to a comment that I found to be on-topic on the same way mine is, but that was deleted before I could respond. The poster pointed out how voiced suspicion over political incentives in the matter is labelled "anti-science", when it quite ironically is the exact opposite. So...

I'm just trying to find the link between "global warming" and the petrodollar, then will I know why the label of those who really didn't believe it at first went from "those people who don't believe it entirely until further objective analysis is provided" to "skeptics" (that's the first warning sign) all the way to deniers. Notice that the quote marks on the last one naturally disappears, since it is by then "established". It's impossible to present data and easy-to-digest information to the general audience if not both parties can present their own conclusion and collaborate by covering up the potential holes in the other's argument, which is the case in any free debate. But whenever a "discussion" has come to the stage of where the term "deniers" is thrown at the other party then you know it's a dead-end street, just as political as it longer has nothing to do with science.

With that said I gladly consider myself searching for the truth, that to me yet has not hundred percent not been found, proven and presented. This means I have not made up my mind, but the fact that there is something that makes one party clearly more willing to convince the general audience that they're correct by persuasion, intimidation and accusations rather than just presenting solid objective facts - all this makes me, yes, skeptical.