The article is misusing the word sceptic here, which is a pet peeve of mine. That language indirectly contributes to a lack of respect for actual experts and a sense of “there is no objective truth” BS.

Skepticism is not blindly denying things. That would be more akin to cynicism, or well, denialism. You can’t be a “climate change skeptic”, any more than you can be a “round earth skeptic”, or a “gravity skeptic”.

Skepticism is about being willing to update or disregard beliefs that do not match the evidence. It’s about determining what is or isn’t high quality evidence, and letting your ideas be challenged and tested, as only the things most likely to be true will survive. It’s a process for how you approach new information, deeply held beliefs, your own assumptions, and the claims of others. It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than anything else we’ve got.

And unfortunately for “climate change skeptics”, that also means we can know with fairly high confidence, the truth of certain things. Climate science and climate change are some of the things we have very strong evidence for, and to be “skeptical” of them in this day is not critical thinking. It’s either lying, political posturing, or burying your head in the sand.