[freedomben]

That's a decent point. I do find it unfortunate that the term has become polarized because it is a convenient and descriptive categorical term.

I don't have any better solutions, other than maybe something more specific that tries to understand the position of the person rather than sticking them in a large group identity with which they likely don't conform to entirely.

I generally like to ask people how they identify themselves, and then call them that. If they identify as climate deniers, then the term is completely fine.

We find it terribly rude to label somebody with pronouns like "he" or "she" when they prefer something else. I don't see this as much different.

[leppr]

You could say the same thing about the term "conspiracy theorist". It's just more convenient to label opposing voices with a single, derogatory connotated, term. Especially when the aforementioned group is comprised of many genuinely stupid/malicious individuals.

Now the problem with those groups is that their borders are made intentionally blurred. In the case of climate change: industrial/government lobbyists and shills try to mingle with genuinely skeptical citizens. Grouping all these people in a single group is one of the only ways to fight against that, especially when the raw information dissemination power of the opposing party is so much stronger.