Are substantiated claims are more willing accepted by the denialist politicians lawyers or the skeptic?

A denials politician will accept claims that are in agreement with his position claiming that the data presented to support them is substantiated. A lawyer can either be for or against supporting a position depending on which side he represents. Thus he examines data with a view towards interpreting it as good or bad depending on the outcome he wishes to achieve.

A skeptic will only accept claims made, whether they present themselves as substantiated or not, after examining and evaluating the data supporting them.Many bogus claims - fad diets, get rich schemes, or the presence of human skinned lizard overlords - are presented with serious claims and must be denied by all.

A skeptic will support claims made which are accompanied substantiated data. He will however not accept the truthfulness of the data without investigation. The other two will set set low bars for "substantiated" if they wish to support the position or will disavow the data if it suits them.