Whatever you choose to call them, it is clear that there are a group of people who like to style themselves "anti-skeptics". These people have very little understanding of Earth Sciences and believe that other people's beliefs should be determined solely by National Science Association press releases. They lump anyone who disagrees with them in one group, call them names and then dismiss them as stupid pawns in some great conspiracy. They hold dodgie polls where they claim 70% of scientists say there is some degree AGW since 1950 and the problem is serious. Then claim anyone who doesn't believe that climate is solely determined by C02 emissions has no right to speak because they are violating a consensus.
There are people who are skeptical of the computer modelling predictions, people who are skeptical of whether you can model such a complex system accurately at all, people who are skeptical about the forcing values, people who are skeptical about the amount natural variation, people who are skeptical about the weightings given to solar fluctuation all the way through to people who are skeptical that the Earth hasn't warmed and believe it is actually cooling.
As far funding and conspiracies go the fossil fuel industry is fairly trivial. Heartland spent $18,000 fund air fares and accommodation for one skeptic's lecture tour and this apparently is a scandal. Yet a professional scientist whose salary, research, conference and traveling expenses are all funded by pro AGW, most of it levied on taxpayers who aren't supposed to have a say in it, manufactures fraudulent documents about a Heartland conspiracy and you believe that. WFF and WCF are now billion dollars businesses funded by Government and corportaitons pushing their agendas but skeptics can't question what effects that has.
It was Jones at the CRU who did block the publication and work of other scientists trying to publish temperature records that showed the cooling since Roman times and the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age actually existed. And they managed to get them dismissed as inconsequential local variations in the IPCC report. It was the IPCC that purported to rely on peer reviewed data when over a third of its references weren't including the Himalaya glacier melting figures quoted from a mates article in WCF propaganda and put it in the report and executive summary as scientific fact.
Actually what we know is that the warming is caused by C02, methane, soot, hydrocarbons, decline in S04 in the atmosphere. Along with feedbacks involving changes in water vapour with ice sheets. There there are the primary drivers of fluctuations in solar radiation intensity and electro-magnetic spectrum shifts and cosmic rays. And whole pile of other factors like land use and vegetation chances, evapouration changes, global dimming and its decline, ocean currents and atmospheric systems, the siting of weather stations and the heat island effect.
All those factors are interconnected it is the tiny precise values and errors of all them all that matter. And anyone who approaches analysing such complex system where changes cycle over hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia and eras, there are large errors and no way to control variables or replicate experiments without a healthy amount of skepticism is an idiot.