This is a pretty good illustration of being a denier rather than a sceptic:
The problem with the notion of "science denier" is that is entirely too close in concept to "heretic". The AGW advocates are entirely religious in their zeal, and their religious belief is that the End Is Near, and We Must All Repent!
Straw man. The discussion is scientific, not religious, and you're distorting what the scientists are saying. If you have scientifically valid objections against the current state of the science you are very welcome to the debate. If you just object because you don't like what the scientists are saying, you're a science denier. Nobody will burn you at any stake, but nobody will take you serious either.
Remember, before Al Gore got into politics and invented his own Church of Warmism, he had flunked out of Divinity School. Being the High Priest of Warming, he has invented his own religion - and every religion has to have heretics.
Shooting the messenger. You may not like Al Gore, but that doesn't mean that his message was wrong.
You're trying to discredit climate change based on emotional arguments, rather than on objective arguments. That makes you a denier rather than a sceptic; exactly what this discussion is about.