A true skeptic applies that skepticism as equally to their own beliefs and to frings beliefs as they do to popular or widely accepted beliefs.
The problem is that if somebody is dishonest, there's no way to convince them that they're being dishonest. Either they know it, and refuse to admit it, or they're so dishonest that they've completely lost track of what it means to objectively evaluate evidence.
So it's the kind of thing that experts in the domain will all be able to discern, while those same experts will be thought of as conspirators by the contrarian (and reinforced by their equally non-expert circle of trusted acquaintances). About the only hope you have at that point is noticing when the conspiracy is so large that it's simply not reasonable to expect it to persist. But since they get reinforcement from their large circle of non-experts, they usually conclude that the same logic applies both ways.
If you only apply your skepticism to polular narratives but not to your pet theories, then you are not truely a skeptic.
It doesn't matter what you believe, it just matters that you approach what you believe with an equal or higher level of skepticism than you approach what others believe.
It is denialism--really, it's willful, militant ignorance--at this point to go against the consensus on climate change. It's just being obtuse.
All I can say is, buckle the F up, because the effects of climate change are compounding year by year and decade by decade. I am so confident in this, after reading tons on the subject, having been all over the world and seen it, that I'll just leave it there.