I seem to recall that not I, but you, had either ignored or summarily dismissed the qualified reputable scientists who support with my "faith-based" opinion. An opinion, I should add, that literally was no opinion at all, but an expression of uncertainty. And because I asserted that those supporting policy changes to address global warming were doing so based on the opinions of reputable qualified scientists, you concluded, again without any apparent basis or logic, that "[I] have policies, people who disagree with [me] have agendas."
Rather than trade insults, I will leave you with this appropriate quotation: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer
"There're people like [Lindzen] in every field of science. There are always people in the fringes. They're attracted to the fringe . . . It may be as simple as, how do you prove you're smarter than everyone else? You don't do that by being part of the consensus," Held says.
The other skeptics are portrayed as loonier than Lindzen (i.e. not to be taken seriously as scientists. The argument against human-caused warming is the one being ridiculed here. The AGW proponents who predict doom via tipping points invite ridicule since there is zero science in those scenarios, just speculation and rigged computer models. There's ridiculous statements by the other side as well.
As for violently opposed, that exists on both sides, for example peer review by skeptics is sorely lacking causing Gray and others to lash out at the publications. The violence on the human-caused side is often subtle since political correctness on the environment and other issues has thoroughly infected the mainstream. I used to read Scientific American 20 years ago and it's astounding to read it today.
"I asserted that those supporting policy changes to address global warming"
... the only policy change that makes any sense wrt global warming is to build 1,000 nuclear power plants.