[pale-hands]

If you are "Happy to agree with AGW", you're not a climate denier, or even a climate skeptic as Scientific American would define it. (Unless, of course, your agreement with AGW is not really that). The article is about consilience of evidence, and doesn't even touch on mitigation, so it's hard to guess what you are reacting against.

Your characterisation of the controversy as religious is interesting to me. We would both probably apply the adjective "religious" to firmly held beliefs that are unsupported by the facts, but would disagree as to the facts. And we would both not apply the "religious" adjective to ourselves.

[tannerwj]

Unfortunately, I can totally relate to him. I have been called a climate denier just for disagreeing with a proposed solution. Climate change and its proposed solutions (for one the Paris Accord) have almost a religious following that are quick to attack anyone who disagree with them on even the smallest point. It is no way to solve problems.

[pale-hands]

Aaron695 described himself as a "climate denier", though, which is unusual.

The Paris Accord, by itself, cannot do nearly enough to avert disaster, but it was the best that could be done diplomatically (especially in the light of US domestic politics). As such, it's better than nothing. No question that the whole subject has become very toxic and politically polarised, and that people have hair-trigger responses that sometimes misfire.

[polotics]

I call strawman-citation needed. Could you link to any post on this site where you observed this religious following?