Maybe they sound reasonable because they are reasonable?

I think reasonable climate sceptic is no longer possible.

To be a climate sceptic requires wilful ignorance of evidence.

I see this all the time too. There's always some appeal to open-mindedness or an interesting hypothesis.

It's all horseshit of course, in the same vein as antivax.

Have you ever considered the possibility of the alarmists being the ones actually involved in an "intentional and sophisticated astroturfing campaign" of global scale?

You may disagree with climate change skepticism, but you still ought to recognize the fact that a group of government-funded scientists with incomes tied to political agendas all screaming "but almost all of us agree on this thing!" in every media outlet is a bit suspicious (as if the laws of nature have anything to do with size of your bandwagon). Add the fact that they've been demonstrably wrong over and over again for the past 50+ years, and it smells even more fishy. You may not change your position on the matter, but it shouldn't be surprising that even educated people (especially those who have heard these predictions for decades) are skeptical.

It's not "we agree", it's "all the different strands of evidence agree": that's the difference between a scientific consensus and a social (ie, bandwagon) one.

> all the different strands of evidence agree

Are you referring to evidence that suggests climate is always changing (in which case I also agree!), or evidence of AGW? If it's the latter, I'm afraid you'd be ignoring an incredibly strong body of evidence on the contrary.

I'm afraid you've been mislead. The jury is in on this, AGW is not in dispute in the scientific community.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

(The link goes to a page with further references and papers)