Here's a fuller attempt to explain the analogy:
Parapsychology, like climate science, is a specialised scientific discipline. Within both disciplines, there is a majority who hold a consensus view. In the case of parapsychology, that there is strong statistical evidence for psi; in the case of climate science, that the planet is warming due to human causes. With respect to both disciplines, there are "skeptics" who claim that the consensus within the discipline is wrong. With respect to both disciplines, some of those "skeptics" are part of the discipline - e.g. Wiseman in the case of parapsychology; Lindzen in the case of climate science - and some are from outside the discipline, and unqualified, e.g. Sam Harris in the case of parapsychology, and Andrew Bolt in the case of climate science.
So, if you accept that mainstream parapsychologists who accept the consensus in their discipline are well placed to reject the skepticism about psi, then it's "peculiar" that you do not accept that mainstream climate scientists who accept the consensus in their discipline are well placed to reject the skepticism about global warming.