A distinction really needs to be made between "doesn't believe in climate change" and "doesn't think [humans are] affecting the climate significantly". The two are regularly conflated, and it's really unhelpful to discourse on the subject when someone who goes even the slightest bit against mainstream views gets branded as DENIER ^LOL.

This even hurts people who are skeptical about specific solutions, like CO² reduction or trading. A few months back, Bjorn Lomborg, an economist who believes in anthropogenic climate change and the IPCC's statistics and predictions wholeheartedly, tried to set up the Lomborg Consensus Centre (part of the Australia Consensus Centre project, itself a subsidiary of Copenhagen Consensus) to study the best solutions for climate change. However, for daring to suggest that the cure of drastic CO² reductions might be economically worse than the illness whilst offering alternatives, he was tainted, the project was called "an insult to Australia's scientific community" and the facility was cancelled. The story made it here to KiA, actually. It was sad to see that some folks here bought the "denier" narrative hook, line and sinker. I thought months of getting called misogynists would make you all a little more skeptical of media narratives.

I find that when talking about climate, people also frequently say "carbon" when they're referring to carbon dioxide, so you get to hear wonderful phrases like "reduce carbon emissions" and "carbon tax". As a Grammar Nazi, I find this extremely triggering and problematic.