But are you criticising the 'fundamentals' of climate science, or are you regurgitating verbatim bits of opinion pieces published in tabloids? There's a difference between forming an opinion of whether you like music or ballet, and forming an opinion on a body of scientific evidence. Or rather, there should be a difference. If it's just gut feeling, then there isn't one.
What do you think the fundamentals of climate science are? It's not just the daily mail readers who do this, it's the guardian readers too. It's not at all unusual to come across an internet dispute over many pages where neither party has the least grasp of the fundamentals. The tabloid controversy really bears little to no resemblance to the scientific discussion.
I think generally that contrarians just like to be contrarian. It's not a rational position, and if you came across it on a topic in which you don't reject the consensus, like evolution (i'd hope), or the geocentric universe, i'm sure you'd be able to recognise uninformed or misinformed contrarianism for what it is.