The argument for "Climate extremism"

The ultimate aim of us sceptics must be for good science, that is to say free, fair** and open discussion based on the evidence where all views are welcome, so long as it is accepted that the evidence is the final arbiter (not some fake consensus).
As such, we sceptics readily accept and thoroughly endorse the right of people to disagree with us. Indeed I would argue very strongly, that the greatest compliment one person can do to another is to take the time & effort to find fault with their arguments.
Unfortunately, in the area of climate due to a number of factors (of which the rise of the internet was one), at one time, much of academia was of a single mind – or at least allowed itself to be portrayed that way. That the “debate was over”, that alternative views were not allowed and that sceptics were wrong merely for raising our concerns over the standard of work and evidence.
However, it is now very clear that increasingly academics have changed their views and that now large numbers accept that climate is a legitimate area for debate. Whilst relatively few speak out, there’s more of this kind of view being heard:

French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless

As such there are now two fairly distinct camps on non-sceptics:

1. Those like the French society, who whilst they may not agree with us sceptics entirely, they have looked at the evidence and concluded that the issue needs further “discussion”.
2. Those like Obama, Lewandowsky, Tamino, Anders, and a host of other small minded people, who continue with their doomsday claim that the climate is extreme,their own self-proclaimed “omniscience” and there lies that all significant weather events are the “most extreme yet” that anyone who disagrees with them is a criminal, that free speech must be denied any who disagree with them.

I therefore feel the sceptic terminology of others needs to reflect this change. In the past we have used various terms:
Warmist
We have won the war of public acceptance of the “pause” and so the term “warmist” is no longer relevant to the actual trend. Indeed, it was never an ideal name (shortened from global warmist – as in those supporting the PR), because it implied something about future warming. Whilst I personally think cooling over the next decade is slightly more likely than warming, I don’t fundamentally object to the view that CO2 ought to cause a bit of warming (instead I would argue that we are very unlikely to see such a small change within the context of much larger  natural variation). Therefore I have had to stop using the term  “warmist”.
Alarmist
The term alarmist, came to mean those who were alarmed by the climate and those who were not. This accurately reflected a significant difference as most sceptics accepted 20th century warming, that CO2 should have a small effect, but the significant difference was about the alarm expressed about CO2.However, as the global population and academia have become less and less alarmed and as I’ve come to see the potential for rapid cooling that is possible as a result of the ice-age cycle, I have to say I was somewhat alarmed by the possibility.
So, I can reasonably see that alarm is quite possible over the climate (at least regarding cooling). And I’m not convinced we are against “alarm”, which is a judgement of the importance of the evidence so much as poor quality science, and the vicious cycle of those whose alarm causes them to look for problems and manipulate data and models to promote further alarm.
Climate extremists
But, by far the biggest concern I have for previous categorisations of the “other side” from sceptics, is that they lumped both the extreme eco-fascist alongside those who were genuinely concerned – largely based on the science (as they had available even though that “science” is highly suspect) that CO2 might have a small effect.
We need terminology, that does not condemn the well intentioned academics (even if somewhat naive about the manipulations that go on) who, whilst not being as sceptical as a real sceptic, are now at least speaking up about their concerns over the subject area of climate. Indeed, we need terminology that condemns extremisms without condemning those who reasonably put forward the argument based on the evidence they have.
Therefore I would like to encourage all sceptics to cease categorisation our opposition as “warmists” or “alarmists” and now refer to those against our position as “climate extremists”.
Mike Haseler
**Note, “fair” must mean equity of funding and not the present system where funding goes to one viewpoint not only within academia, but much worse within the public debate itself.