There's nothing wrong with the amygdala response -
Of course there isn't. Alarm is a natural human response to any perception of a threat, whether the threat is real or imagined. If a person has a fear of snakes, for example, or a phobia about snakes, which is technically called ophidiophobia or herpetophobia, they are more likely to misinterpret any perception of something that looks similar to a snake, such as a coil of rope on the ground.
Ascribing a name to people and groups of people who subscribe to and agree with a specific point of view on a specific issue or a general issue, is a necessary process of communication.
I'm a Caucasian, for example. If someone were to call me a Negro, that would be incorrect
If we didn't have technical terms for a phobia about snakes, would you object to naming an 'herpetophobiac' a 'snake alarmist'?
If you don't like the term 'alarmist' as it applies to a group of people who appear to believe there will be a catastrophic change in climate if we don't significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, then what name would you recommend?
..the emotional response based on limited or poor evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary also doesn't warrant name calling just because they have a different view.
I'll repeat, everything requires a name in order for a discussion to take place. I consider myself to be a skeptic on the issue of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). I have no problems being called a skeptic, and I can justify my skepticism in rational terms relating to the methodology of science.
I would object to being called a 'climate change denier' because I accept that climate is always changing to some degree, in one direction or another, for a multitude of reasons which are not always understood. The term denier is therefore incorrect and misleading.
The issue for me relates to the fundamental necessity for the application of the most sound and rigorous principles of the scientific method, before certainty about a particular theory can take place.
The climate of our planet does not lend itself to the application of these fundamental principles of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time, observing the results in real time, and being able to devise experiments which could help falsify an existing theory if one is skeptical about its truth, which a good scientist always should be.
We are surrounded by products which have undergone such rigorous testing during the various stages of their development, whether cars, TVs, cameras, or pharmaceutical drugs. As the saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
For further clarification, I'm actually in favour of the development of different methods of producing energy. This is scientific progress. Our modern life styles are totally dependent on sources of energy. The more efficient and cheaper our energy supplies, the more prosperous we become (potentially). The more inefficient and expensive our energy supplies, the poorer we become, on average of course.
If producing energy from solar, wind, hydro, tidal power, and so on, becomes more efficient than getting power from the latest and cleanest coal-power technology, taking reliability of supply also in consideration, then that's reason enough to abandon all coal production.
However, during this process there needs to be sensible planning. Emotional alarm and mischaracterizations of CO2, as a pollutant for example, can lead to bad decisions, as has happened in Australia with our soaring energy prices.