There are many skeptic websites and magazines around the world. For example www.skeptics.org.uk. They advertise themselves as skeptics but are actually disbelievers who take a stand against unconventional thinking and can become very abusive if you take an alternative view.

An interesting example of this was Richard Dawkins recent program looking at the ”Enemies of science” . He posed legitimate questions  of alternative medicine and condemned people as enemies of science for asking similar questions about the MMR vaccine. A true skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence, this is what we have attempted to do on this website. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary. Since disbelievers usually fancy themselves skeptics, I will  call them pseudoskeptics, and their opinions pseudoskepticism.

http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html

This site tells us about the more belligerent pseudoskeptics who have their own organizations and publications.

Wikipedia also recognises the term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism explaining it as thinking that appears to be skeptical, but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, through his Journal of Scientific Exploration, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'.
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
• Double standards in the application of criticism 
• The making of judgments without full inquiry
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
• Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
• Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence 
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it