Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science. Skepticism has its place, but only if it is informed. What Forbes publishes is hardly informed skepticism, and even its toy climatologists like Roy Spencer are notable for the fact that their bought-and-paid for skepticism never actually enters the published literature. Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his (microbiology). They make a very loud skeptical sound in the press, but when it comes to actually doing science, oddly their published record is in the mainstream.
Maybe the problem here is that you're too bloody infantile to accept that the universe doesn't give a fuck about your political and economic ideology.
And before you accuse me of being some commie greenie, well let me educate you. I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative. What I'm not is a pathetic man-child who stomps his feet and declares "that science makes things difficult, it must be wrong!!!!!"
Grow the fuck up.