While I like the general thrust of the argument, I would suggest it is mis-specified. To be clear, NOBODY denies that the Climate is changing, the term Denier is simply the catch-all Ad Hom as part of a full litany of logical fallacies designed to block discussion on Policies supposedly justified by 'addressing Climate Change'.
Man made Global Warming is simply an hypothesis to explain Climate change, but has been inverted such that evidence of Climate Change is now cited as proof of the hypothesis.
No other theories are allowed and thus we have false dichotomies, slippery slopes, straw men attacks, red herrings, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion and every other rhetorical trick up to and including the inversion of the burden of proof.
Cunningly, the Green Industrial blob has got us 'thinking past the sale', any opponent to the man made Co2 argument now has to prove an alternative hypothesis, otherwise the AGW is (somehow by definition) deemed to be 'true'. This is not science, nor logic, it is a bandwagon and markets are very, very, good at these.
'The market' sees capital being (mis)allocated to the Green Industrial Complex and 'follows the money' - including setting up large sustainability and climate change departments in Universities and Investment Banks. In that sense it doesn't care about your or my opinion, but it does care about that of those directing those flows. If those change, then the market does.
I am not writing this with the benefit of Trump 2.0 hindsight, but watch how quickly the 'market opinion' has shifted.