In any community, organization or field there are often differences not only in opinions, but the attitudes and perceptions of the very thing that binds the individuals together in that group. In my own case, I feel that, as a skeptic, one must be very careful not to off-handedly dismiss a piece of evidence without providing some realistic alternative explanation or acknowledging that the claimant is illustrating something for which the skeptic cannot easily explain. An inability to explain a phenomenon does not mean a skeptic is acknowledging the validity of the claim. It is merely a truthful statement that the skeptic does not have an explanation for the evidence presented. Many pieces of evidence do not point to a unique explanation, or are not easily reproducible.
Some skeptics are more likely to reject a claim or piece of evidence than others are.
Indeed how skeptics approach claims can very widely. Obviously dismissing all unusual claims is counter-productive, but so is spending all ones time carefully examining every claim. Skeptics attempt to decide how much examination is required by a claim by weighing in how unusual the claim is. There are many differing opinions on how much examination a piece of evidence warrants. Attitudes and perceptions of topics that are outside the bounds of those that presently cover skepticism also vary widely among skeptics.