At this point we have to consider people who deny that climate change is caused by humans to be climate deniers, since they are advocating for no change in behavior which is the same as people who outright deny that it's happening.
I've heard these arguments: (a) that we don't have the evidence to confirm that climate change is anthropogenic, and (b) that we shouldn't change our behavior. My understanding is (b) is not tied to (a), but rather that most claims of (b) come out of different views on conservation, what "nature" is, what's achievable with technology, and how different approaches to climate change might impact human quality of life.
And (b) is not really that we _shouldn't_ change our behavior, but that the most popular ideas for how we should are varying degrees of infeasible, harmful, or fascistic.
The "right" on this issue is largely misunderstood. Those pushing for a shift to renewables and a lifestyle change in wealthier nations deserve better literature on what their opposition is advocating for and against: https://compactmag.com/article/energy-lysenkoism
What behavior change should people advocate for to not be considered climate deniers? Itβs starting to sound more like a temperance movement than a serious attempt to solve a problem.
Yeah, it's like a religion at this point. There are many meaningful debates to be had but people just react very emotionally and dogmatically.
What is the degree of human causation?
How much can be imputed to solar cycles at any given moment of time?
What % of CO2 is produced by humanity?
Is there a possibility of actual catastrophe?
Should pollution reduction and cleanup be prioritized over carbon capture/reduction?
