The article argues that the polarized labels used in the climate change debate, such as “skeptic” or “alarmist,” are shaping the discussion in a combative and antagonistic way. The article critically reviews the literature on these labels, examining how they are constructed and used within academic and policy contexts. It argues that these labels dismiss various claims-makers, and suggests that there should be a deeper concentration on understanding underlying motivations which could improve public understanding and communication in the polarized climate change debate.