What I’ve observed from watching these denier threads is that the deniers, as a group, have no consistent view of how the Earth is changing or what processes are responsible. You can’t argue because there are as many positions as deniers.
First of all, enough with the BS "denier" label OK? First of all, what is being denied?......that someone disagrees with a poor characterization of what is actually going on? ....that they disagree with what you think is some kind of collective opinion? Science doesn't work that way, never has, never will.
Secondly, if you bothered to actually look at the arguments being made by those who you keep labeling in an insulting manner, scientists who have been actively researching in various aspects of climate science for decades, you would find that they actually don't have some sort of all-encompassing theory. You do not need an alternative theory to criticize one that is made. That is how science works. Someone proposes a theory, others pick it apart and point out the shortcomings and the individual who proposed the original theory can choose to adjust his theory, abandon it and/or create a new one. The point being made is climate is very complex and is not well understood as researchers like Judith Curry point out continuously. If you bothered to read the masses of literature there is always a new paper that is stating some aspect of the climate system is apparently different than what was formerly thought. If it is complex then the time needs to be spent to fully understand all of the interactions, make sure models include all of the characterizations of the various variables and their interactions. Man-made contributions of greenhouse gas obviously have a contribution, nobody is arguing otherwise ...what is being argued is how much of a contribution. The "deniers" as you call them are not saying...."I have a better theory". What they are saying is the current theory is insufficient as has been demonstrated by the failure of models and projections and needs considerable more study not influenced by political machinations. Suggesting there is a consensus and that is all you need is anathema to proper scientific investigation as has been shown numerous times through history.