"You say a "skeptic" is competent".
No, I said a competent scientist is a skeptic. Skeptics themselves can be competent or not.
"...and then MUST agree with whatever YOU believe". I don't believe I said that. I said that a skeptic will examine the evidence, then accept that evidence (assuming it's valid). What I believe has nothing to do with it. Similarly, I do not assume I am correct - that is the antithesis of skepticism (and in fact typical of deniers).
"And you poison the well by saying that evidence against your belief is "cherry-picked" and evidence for is "vast". You shut down any possibility of debate or reasonable discussion from the start."
Once again, what I believe does not matter. Also... The word "vast" is a reasonable adjective to describe the weight of evidence for global warming. Cherry-picking is indeed a common tactic of the denier - you may like to take note of the many articles that use this tactic. Example: A "boffin" somewhere will issue a press release referring to a single study that, with a certain reading, appears to cast doubt on some arcane aspect of the science. Fair enough so far. This will then be pounced on by the deniers as "evidence" that there is a significant controversy, and "all bets are off" (again - typical language). This tactic is called cherry-picking and it is an absolute no-no in respectable scientific circles.
"I think you are very poorly educated in what is happening ... "
Possible, even likely - a healthy attitude I might suggest ;). Anyway, I strongly suggest you look into this. When you do, you may be surprised - if indeed you really are interested in "following the money".