There are people out there denying the shape of the planet, despite that it has been observed directly.
You're conflating things that are empirically verifiable with things that are not.
> The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science"
This is clearly untrue. Some people, such as the 'flat Earthers', deny plain facts.
Knowing whether or not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions impact global climate can be reasonably achieved with some modeling assumptions.
We may not be able to predict the weather in each location for the indefinite future, but we certainly can and do understand the general impact of bringing billions of tonnes of new greenhouse gas into a system.
Turns out you can get pretty far modeling the macro behavior without perfect knowledge of the micro details.
They also like to muddy the waters, climates change, because climates aren't even a thing, but an aggregate, obviously. Anthropogenic climate change, is what's being questioned, and that there is no certainty that it will cause disasters any more so than if there was still 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe 400ppm is bad, doesn't seem so tho, we are living the experiment.
BUT also, I would bet Air Conditioners are far worse for the planet than 400ppm CO2, even if they act together. ACs, are, absolutely abysmal thermodynamically. Heating up one space to make another space colder temporarily, with high likelihood of CO2 release.
Slight tangent. Have you heard the sixth Dimmu Borgir album? Good stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFRwNYPsHwY
I wonder will it generate any discussion, or just be castigated via downvotes, your choice.