That's because "climate change denier" is almost always applied to people who accept that the climate is changing...
Maybe you find yourself in that category, but I'm sure over 60% of the people I bicker with about this topic on slashdot flat-out deny that the climate is changing. And this is supposed to be a smart crowd...
but need better evidence than a positive correlation to accept anthropogenic causes.
So then you're talking about people who have been living under a rock for the last 30 years and somehow never heard of the greenhouse effect? You know, the causative link that was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 purely based on the spectroscopic properties of CO2, and that has survived every scientific challenge since then, to be confirmed starting from the 1980s by:
- the correlation you're talking about
- spectroscopic satellite measurements of the earth's albedo
- sophisticated quantitative calculations/simulations.
If you accept the positive correlation, and know about the greenhouse effect, and are still whining about lack of evidence for anthropogenic causes, then surely, you're in denial about something...
And "evolution denier" is similarly attached...
By whom? You're railing against strawman arguments, but that sounds just as much like a strawman.
to people who have no problem with adaptation of species but don't necessarily accept that evolution is how life began.
There it becomes a semantic discussion, depending on where you pin "the beginning of life". I have no problem with putting the label "evolution deniers" on people who think eukaryotic life forms are not the product of evolution. Conversely, if you define "the beginning of life" as the first molecules which, however inefficiently, could trick their environment into making copies of themselves, then you're arguably right that one cannot really speak of evolution before that point.
It's also amply demonstrated in this discussion when one of the posters claimed that anti-vaccine people wanted a return of virulent diseases. It's an easy straw man to set up, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you on a specific point is seeking something much broader than is actually said. For example, it can't be that "anti-vaccine people" want to make sure that vaccines are as safe as possible, it must be that they are pro-disease.
I agree it's a a bit dihonest to accuse the anti-vaccine people of wanting the return of virulent diseases, but there are now many studies showing the effect of their (however well-meaning) efforts is just that. Vaccines are as safe as current technology allows; on this front, the FDA of the country of medical malpractice lawsuits is not cutting any corners. A lot of anti-vaccine people are against vaccines because they contain scary synthetic molecules and (demonstrated-safe doses of) equally scary-sounding elements, which is a very similar argument, and equally irrational, as the one in favor of the most diluted forms of homeopathy. And then there are also some that are against vaccines because there have been incidences of adverse effects (no matter how many orders of magnitude lower than the disabling and deadly effect of the diseases they prevent). For both categories, which together account for the bulk of anti-vaccine people, their definition of safe (ie. "not sounding scary" or "never ever triggering a single adverse reaction"), there will never be safe vaccines. Again, I know it's not their conscious intention, but they are doing bupkis, nada, zilch for making vaccines as safe as possible. The de facto effect of their actions is, indeed, the return of virulent diseases.