A couple of things….
1. There is a whole world of difference between denying climate change and arguing against Anthropogenic Global Warming
2. The world has naturally changed temperature many times over the millennia
3. The use of the words \”climate change denier\” are fascistic in tone and intent. If I am to be equated to a Holocaust Denier because I have doubts about the anthropogenic input to the changes in climate; then that equates me to someone who denies the Nazis exists, so does that the make the Anthropogenic Theorists the Nazis? That question is rhetorical, and I am NOT saying the warmists are Nazis.
4. My view is that the planet would be warming with or without the input from human activity since the industrial revolution.
So just consider this. If the warming is largely non-anthropogenic and we are diverting massive amounts of economic effort to 'fight' all this, then what future for the economy…
My final thought. If the warmists continue to use language and pressures that stink of fascistic attitudes so that I cannot reasonable ask and question the difference between natural and unnatural global temperature changes without being shouted down, then the whole concept of peer review science is being denied and any proposal from that side of the argument is weak and feeble.