You're really broadly generalizing though. Denying one controversial subject doesn't mean someone denies all science. Skepticism is a healthy attribute, it indicates critical thinking, and an open mind.
A skeptic may be ignorant, but is willing to learn. A real skeptic, upon gaining knowledge, will be able to more effectively question and argue the subject.
A denier is willfully ignorant and will never learn as a result. They can never effectively question or argue the subject because they are always arguing from a point of ignorance. You also can not convince them no matter how much evidence you have since they automatically dismiss anything that contradicts their ignorant views.
I have no problem with evolution or Darwin whatsoever, believe solar power will be a fantastic resource when it matures, would like to eventually see an end to use of fossil fuels as soon as it becomes economically feasible to do so, am skeptical of religion (IMO religion is conveniently pre-packaged cereal box spirituality /philosophy at best); and think creationism is a fairy tale;
All good and logical, but...
but whereas AGW is concerned, I'm skeptical (but open minded) because of all the politics and hypocrisy that surrounds it. Al Gore and friends drone on and on about the dangers of carbon dioxide and man's apocalyptic effect on the planet, then all go fly their fuel-hog private personal jets to a summit to discuss it.
And just like that, you go from skeptic to denier. Instead of ignoring the talking heads and cheer leaders and going right to the science (thousands of papers, petabytes of research), you latch on to it and then paint the entire scientific community (which has absolutely nothing to do with the politics or Al Gore) with the same brush.
Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Neither is Leonardo DiCaprio. They aren't. They don't have degrees in climate science. They've never published peer reviewed research on the subject.
As for the politics, that's policy makers. That's congress. Again, this has nothing to do with the science community. Congress does not approve papers, and the science community does not approve policy decisions.
The average rank and file climate scientist makes around $70K a year. Most programmer pull down more than that, and they don't need a Ph. D to do it. This "fly all over the place in private jets" bullshit is just that, bullshit. When I was working at NASA, the parking lots weren't full of shiny new Jags and BMWs. They were full of 10 year old Toyotas and Hondas. You don't become a climate scientists to get rich.
No respectable climate science I know of is predicting the end of the world, nor am I aware of any published research (including the IPCC reports) making any claims that global warming will kill of humanity. Again, that is simply more denial bullshit dredged up as an excuse to not listen to the science.
Same is true of Gore's personal practices (i.e. his house), he seems very unconcerned in practice about those things which he champions in print or video. Such a strong proponent is expected to lead by example. The UN says AGW is critical to address, yet China hasn't had to abide by any accords, being probably the worst pollution offender currently on the planet.
"They're not doing it so why do we have to?" This is a really poor excuse, again often used by deniers for some twisted justification for their thinking.
Additionally, all climate and weather forecasts, whether next weekend or 100 years from now, despite the differences, are based on computer models, which are far from infallible.
Another denier argument. All models are far from infallible. They're models; an imperfect representation and they always will be since, at least in this universe, since it is impossible to obtain perfect information about a system. The aerodynamic models for jet aircraft are wrong. The models for bridge and building stability are wrong. Every single one of them are wrong.
However, just because a model is wrong doesn't mean it isn't useful. All models have errors, and by accounting for those errors a model will still yield predictive skill. Error analysis is very important in modeling and is used constantly to establish everything from structural integrity limits to likelihoods of future droughts. It's a fundamental component of numerical analysis.
For these reasons, I'm still skeptical
No, you're a denier. You have not put forward a single objective argument to establish your position. Heresay, politics, and ignorance are NOT valid skeptical arguments. You have not brought up a single salient critique of the SCIENCE.
however, I'm not unable to be swayed, given further evidence that isn't dressed up with carbon taxes and other political aspects;
I find this highly unlikely. You've thrown out approximately 200 years of physics, chemistry, and research because you don't agree with what some activists and politicians are saying and doing. That, my friend, is exactly what deniers do. It doesn't matter if their claims violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter if their claims contradict direct observational data.
Denier: Al Gore has a jet. This renders your argument invalid.
additionally, it sure would help if all the celebrities endorsing the tenant of AGW actually practiced what they preached.
How does this even remotely have anything to do with science research? The fact that your even letting celebrities influence your perception of the science demonstrates that you are NOT a skeptic. At all.
Science is a process, a living, dynamic, self-correcting process. It must never be wielded as dogma.
It isn't, and only deniers think that it is