These are plainly could be called as the "Inquisition Club" of proponents of neo-scholastic, that is, the modern science.

They have been changed to an anti-religion atheist cult who blindly worship anything that comes out as a scientific achievement without paying attention to its consequences, perverting, abuse or ethical background.

Say, while 300,000 tons of plastic has been sent to rest in oceans they deny the environmentalist alerting claims as void superstitious fear mongering.

Skeptics societies as part of their promotions advertise that they will investigate claims of ghost finders, UFO watchers and so on.

So, they believe that they are a group of scientists or orthodox scientific minded and want to prove that there is no UFO. It is called prate and carping quibble. Do not they know that in philosophy of science we do not have such an investigation. You want to prove that a non-existing phenomenon does not exist! Actually, those who believe in such thing should prove it. They have two ways: either they should use the scientific method and prove it and publish it with the same criteria and then other scientists around the world and in different times can check the validity of their assertion using the scientific method. Or UFO believers can ignore that method and just use old widows way of story telling or swearing by the stack of holly books that they are righteous, whence in such case that also becomes part of folklores of a group of people. There might occur side discussions related to philosophy, religions and sub-culture, sociology, and also marginal scientific discussions such as whether there is a likeliness of existing aliens in the universe or not. Then, where is your mission of duty among these, just taking memberships from border lines UFO-not-UFO simple hearted (junior ) people?

It seems that they have confused the meaning of skeptic with dogmatic. Skeptics means some one who has doubts about some dogma advertised by an orthodox base of authorisation. Some one who is on the side of that authorisation is called a dogmatist. A dogmatist uses all of his energies to prove those powerful dominant dogmas and any dogma that is supposed to be asserted by those centre of powers later, ahead of becoming powerful enough. For example genetic bases of some human features is a dogma (perhaps correctly) advertised by scientists who are centre of power. Ahead, before it has been realized skeptics defend that soon a gene manipulation can make interested paying people or their off-springs talented musicians. Sceptical means that one says that he doubts that genes has any role on any human feature at all (perhaps completely wrongly). That helps the human society to think more and grow with controversy. They are a group of sycophant cudgel bearers of a new royal court called dorky bullies of fossilised academia.

But at the end of the day they are just a club, and never have enough resources - money, people, time or enthusiasm - to investigate any paranormal or UFO claim.

As Homer Simpson says to Bart, “ My son, there is no such things as ghosts and aliens and Mummies and Eskimos.”

That finished affairs of skeptics. Now a little about some delicate points in language when lay and scientists may meet in discourse.

1. My grandma BELIEVES, "apples fall from the tree due to gravity;" no evidence is required.
2. Simon says, "Moon is NOT made of cheese;" no evidence required.
3. Simon says, "Moon is made of cheese;" evidence required.
4. Simon says, "Moon is made of rocks containing silica and OTHER crystals; no evidence required.
5. Simon says, "Moon is made of rocks containing MOSTLY silica;" evidence required (contrast OTHER with MOSTLY).
6. Simon says, "Moon is created due to ACCIDENTAL collision of another planet (proto-Moon) with proto-earth;" a scientific hypothesis worthy of study.
7. Simon says, "Moon is created due to a FORTUNATE collision of another planet (proto-Moon) with proto-earth;" a philosophical proposition worthy for philosophy, literature religion.
8. Simon says, "Mars could not sustain life UNFORTUNATELY because it is too small to keep its core warm." We cannot decide; perhaps FORTUNATELY, otherwise, Martian Skeptics Society of evidence based science might melt earth with laser guns, there would be no Earth planet Skeptic Society to defend the scientific endeavour.
9. Door to door seasonal carpenter BELIEVES, "a timber triangle is more robust than the heavier timber square in protecting garden's door;" he is more scientific minded than entire Skeptical Society and Wikipedia, and other after dinner quibblers.
10. Simon says, "Earth is created 6000 years ago with all fossils and evidences purported as a 5 billion years object;" no real, deep, well educated, and humane scientist engages to produce any counter-proof. Besides, only a cruel and stupid scientist might use this idea or talk about it to mock and made fun of believers.