Obviously your free to use what ever term you want to call the other side of the scientific debate about Climate Change (not global warming), but the name "denier" is kind of crass.
It is still a debate you know and while that debate isnt about whether it is happening, its about whether it is caused by man's actions and whether the effect of higher c02 levels is actually going to have the catastrophic results the drama queens have predicted. Hell even your poster boy Al Gore has been so far off the mark, to say its comical is an understatement.
Global weather is an extremely complex system, the gullible majority (that seem to believe higher taxes and a more intrusive government) should take a step down from their high horse and actually look at this with an open mind and with pure science at the forefront.
Hell, even the founder of Greenpeace has said this is not about science.
The name "denier" is actually quite mild relative to other names that could be used, and their is no "scientific debate" about global warming and the climate change that follows.
There is, however, a lot of propaganda, paid professional deniers, appeal to authority arguments, political hindrance and out and out BS, some of which is found in your post.
There is an order in which things happen and it's warming then climate change, notwithstanding the denier side wanting to change the name to "climate change" so as to make it easier to dismiss.
I've been watching this topic closely for 15 years or more on-line and my interest really started when I became a surfer back in 1973 so started following weather events locally and worldwide in order to track swell.
Your use of certain expressions like "drama queen", "poster boy Al Gore", "gullible majority", "higher taxes and a more intrusive government" are all from the Denier 101 playbook and show the complete lack of science so often found in your type of posts.
Also, there is no such thing as "global weather".
Most school kids would know that.
Next, one must presume that your reference to "the founder of Greenpeace" means the illustrious Patrick Moore, one of my favorite Bi-ostitutes.
First, he was not THE founder of Greenpeace, he was one of a number of people who formed the group together, although in virtually every mention of him when he's giving a talk to the salmon farmers or the loggers or whichever group is paying him to polish their image the Greenpeace connection is mentioned, notwithstanding how long ago that was and how long it's been since he became "Head Scientist" at his little consulting firm.
He's a proven liar and I've dis-assembled his presentations before simply to show how guys like him operate, having sat through a number of them when I was married to a salmon farmer.
I have nothing but contempt for him and consider him a charlatan of no small proportions.
Finally, your mention of Al Gore means you're attempting to appeal to those who don't like Gore rather than using any actual scientific argument to bolster your side of the discussion.
And Gore made no predictions that haven't happened. That's just more lies from your ilk and anyone who wishes to check that can watch the movie he narrated and hear what he actually said rather than depend on lies put out by the denier crew.
Lies, appeals to authority, semantics, clever slogans, key words, talking points etc. etc. etc. don't mean anything at all in the face of real science and real world observations, but still people make denier posts.
Makes one wonder.
Take care.