Since this seems to be an honest question, let me attempt to give an honest answer.
I am not a climate change "denier" per se, but if I see a news item about this or that climate change report, I will raise my eyebrows. Not so much because of the report, but because of the way the results are /presented/: for example, a common reasoning is "more CO2 means more infra red absorption, and we've seen an increase in CO2, and we are also helping cause that increase, ergo we should get rid of all cars today."
Although somewhat exaggerated, many climate change news articles have a hint of this kind of a presentation. And although I like to believe the actual reports themselves are all objective and scientific, they are often presented in a non-scientific style (if only in the introduction/conclusion), which, for me, reduces the scientific value.
Why? Because I did not do the research. I did not uniformly select measurement locations, I did not record the data, I did not process the statistics. So all I have to base my judgement on is the presentation, and honestly, climate change is one of those sciences that screws up in this respect every once in a while (psychology, sociology and artificial intelligence are three more such sciences).
So no, I am not convinced that us driving around in cars causes the world to flood. Nor am I convinced that Wiles' 1994 proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct.
That does not take away the fact that I know of many other reasons that I would like to see CO2 emissions decrease - if indirect reasons. E.g., it would stabilize the economy and make us independent of weird nations like the Arabic oil states. And we would no longer need to worry about the amount of oil we should save for later use. And it would probably positively affect the air quality in cities if we'd switch to e.g. electric vehicles (and perhaps reduce noise). And /maybe/ there is also some value in all the climate change stories, but to me this is secondary since I cannot assess the value of it.