@g e - the "Denier"
I believe that is exactly the problem with the fact-based opposition to "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change" -- it lacks a catchy and easy-to-say moniker.
The slide from Global Warming to Global Climate Change came about as the "warming" part of the issue was debunked, and that the Earth is in a period of average cooling and not average warming. But any time there are hot-spots around, the Global Nutcases start predicting the end of the world.
So now we have Global Climate Change which, at face value, is not an unreasonable claim, since the climate is dynamic, as we learned in elementary. You know, about the Sahara once being lush and fertile, and the African step which goes all summer dry as hell until the rains come, but not after many animals have died of thirst and hunger. Alas, none of this apparently happened before the advent of Human kind.
If you oppose this wild-eyed save-the-polar-bear-from-going-extinct-even-though-their-numbers-have-grown-do-you-not-believe-polar-bears-are-endangered perspective you are a "denier." Which is eponymous of being a Holocaust Denier.
What the "deniers" need is a name for the facts, and a name to call the fact-deniers. I have struggled with this one, but have though along the lines of "Global Climate Stability" and "Stability Deniers," or "Natural Climate Dynamics" and "Dynamic Deniers," or "Man-Irrelevant Climate Cycle" and "Cyclic Deniers." I think you get the idea.
Paris, man-irrelevant.