Pseudoskeptics Are Not Skeptics was inspired by last year's SalbyStorm, which highlighted the stark divide between scientific skeptics and most (pseudoskeptic) climate dismissives, who reject the mainstream consensus.
Murry Salby's unsupported, internally-inconsistent story of dismissal by Macquarie University was broadcast via blogs, to excited discussion. Contrary evidence mounted over the next few days, including here. Reactions differed strongly.
Update 03/09/16: Judge rejected every Salby claim against Macquarie, which is owed apologies by many.
About 30 commenters accepted mainstream climate science and rejected Salby's wrong ideas from his lectures and 2012 book (see review). Given a one-sided employment dispute story, real skeptics were cautious or knowledgable enough to be more dubious. In the hostile territory of these blogs, they were often insulted, sometimes for merely expressing caution.
Real skeptics knew the science, weighed evidence, and avoided leaping to premature conclusions on Salby's story. Some searched and found relevant history that cast doubt on Salby's credibility, but were ignored or insulted for providing unwanted facts.
Climate dismissives, pseudoskeptic behavior
By contrast, of the 400+ dismissive commenters (who reject mainstream consensus), about 40% explicitly supported Salby's erroneous CO2 ideas, seemingly desperate to believe the current rise in CO2 was natural. That idea was rejected by a mere handful, of whom one apologized and said he expected to be downvoted for doing so, and indeed he was.
Dismissives reacted to Salby's Macquarie story in varying ways: