> to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?

First of all, you shouldn't "aggregate" them. Very few if those who are usually called "climate deniers" actually believe that climate change is not happening. Did you know that?

In general, apart from total deniers, there's people who think climate change might not be as bad, or extreme, or as manmade, or that catastrophic predictions need some check. Labelling them all as "deniers" is just a very handy (and toxic) way to close the conversation.

Climate sceptic is the established term.

It is not as clear cut as that at all. Wikipedia has a page on Denial..

What is "established" is part of the debate too and obviously it is in some deniers interest to instead label themself sceptic. Apparently there has been a debate about this:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/why-is-it-called-denial

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Very great answer in those links, particularly the NCSE one. I'm not certain I agree with their conclusion, but the explanation makes sense and really answers a lot of my questions. Thank you!

They’re not skeptical though, that word already means something. They’re in denial, hence denier. “Climate skeptic” is right up there with “pro life” for cynical lack of sincerity. Frankly “climate denier” is already the respectful term, with the more common appellations being some combination of an adjective and “idiot”. Given that a minority of ideologues, religious zealots, and moneyed interests are going to be the death of us all, I’m finding it hard to care about feelings in this debate. If anything, less PC and more hatred might actually lead to a solution, if a messy one.

There was a time when denial of this issue was really skepticism, and a time for debate, but it was decades ago. At this point it’s like debating with tobacco companies who wanted to claim that smoking was good for you. It’s not a real debate, it’s dealing with people who are arguing in bad faith for selfish reasons at the cost of human lives. Why should ignorant, dangerous people (at best) and disingenuous people (at worst) be afforded any respect or time? Just because those people pretend (sometimes) to be scientific, skeptical, rational, or sincere doesn’t mean anyone else should be compelled to meet them on their own corrupt terms.

It’s like “debating” Creationists, and it’s a waste of time and it demeans the concept of debate. Don’t let cynical bastards drag you down because they learned how to just barely pretend to be skeptics or scientists.

Perhaps the adjective your looking for there is “useful” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

At least that combination grants them the opportunity to be victims rather that villains

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.

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.

Nobody on the mainstream sides of the climate debate are claiming the climate isn’t changing. We are claiming that human causes have an effect less significant than the alarmist side claims.

Basically, if we all stop running our air conditioner, it isn’t going to have any significant effect on long term global temperatures. Basically we object to the idea that lowering standards of living is a meaningful cure for rising temperatures. Humans absolutely cause pollution, nobody “denies” that and most of us care deeply about actual pollution. But once CO2 started being considered some kind of pollutant, the environmental movement essentially jumped the shark in my view. CO2 is just as much a pollutant as oxygen but it is being treated by politicians as if it were benzene.

Actually “CO2” in the context of climate change discussions shouldnt be seen as the specific gas with the same name. Usually it’s a short hand for CO2e https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent

CO2 is a pollutant just like O2 is a pollutant. The earth has a certain balance and the physical phenomena as well as the biosphere collectively support and rely on this balance. If you add too much O2 you'll get a mass extinction. This was the causes of one the earliest mass extinctions on the earth. [1] CO2 is an essential gas for life to be sustained, arguably as important as O2, but that doesn't mean you can arbitrarily add CO2 to the system and expect similar outcome. At some point you'll break the system. This is true for other "good" gases too such as O2, N2, H2 etc...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

If not CO2, what do you consider pollution which influences climate change?

How do you consider oxygen to be causing climate change?

What would you suggest Humans do to reduce their negative impact on climate change if not "turning off the AC"?