LOL. Notice that none of your points address any specific studies. I've never met a self-identified climate change skeptic who reads the journals of the American Geophysical Union[1], like I have since the 1990s. But you people have "functioning BS detectors", "common sense", etc. -- just like all the creationists I've met.
It doesn't matter. The post above gives a fairly good explanation of why there are so many people skeptical either about the climate change, or about its exact rate, or about the causes, or about the policies that should be enacted in its regard.
It is not very scientific in most cases, but from average person's perspective it makes sense. So the notion that every "climate denier" out there is some kind of raving mad lunatic is itself patently absurd. Their position is completely understandable, even if it's scientifically incorrect.
This is especially true when you get to the "policy" side of things.
As a side not, let's not pretend that climate change "believers" (denier, believer - both are horrible labels) are always rational. Most of them are only vaguely inspired by research and driven by more mundane and "social" motives.
For comparison, how much zeal have you seen around colony collapse disorder? It's a serious issues with potentially grave consequences for ecology and agriculture. Almost no one cares. There is no social signalling, no in-group/out-group dynamics, no vitriol. Because it hasn't been politicized. Yet.
Models can be tested against history.
> argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community”
I doesn't rely on consensus, this is just a tool to show the extent of the certainty. Not sure why you feel the need to put consensus or community in quotes.
> unseemly behaviour of said community revealed in “climategate” emails
This is the ultimate exercise in cherry picking, there was one slightly nefarious sounding phrase in thousands of emails and you act like this negates a entire field of science.
> rebranding if the language from “global warming” to “climate change”
When exactly do you think this "rebranding" happened?
Global warming skepticism has got almost nothing to do with “climate denial PR campaigns” and everything to do with people having functioning BS detectors. To wit:
* lofty claims of certainty based on computer models that can’t be effectively tested with out-of-sample data
* argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community”
* unseemly behaviour of said community revealed in “climategate” emails
* second rate academic talent jumping on a career long gravy train
* stipulations by leftist politicians for concentration of vast powers to control the economy to fix the problem
* creeping attribution of all sorts of other problems as second order effects of warming
* rebranding if the language from “global warming” to “climate change”
* the ridiculous idea that “trusting science” is the same thing as trusting scientists. Nobody actually trusts scientists, they trust feedback loops and well-aligned incentives. Take those things away and the trust rightfully evaporates.