Only because I don't believe he's ever denied climate change was happening or that if it is it's not our fault, which are the usual first two phases of denialism.

I don’t follow. You’re responding to a point about the author not being a climate change denialist by saying that he doesn’t think action against climate change is justified.

What point are you actually trying to make? It seems like you’re trying to equate one with the other, especially given your novel use of the word “denialism”. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I’m still unclear on what exactly you are implying.

I just got the impression the OP wasn't aware of Pielke Jr's background. Actually he's probably better described as a contrarian than a denialist, though he's been called out by no less than Michael Mann as belonging to the latter camp.

Fair. Thanks for clarifying.