I think you are projecting. Big time.
One of the most surprising things I learned, and fairly early in my research, is that the 'party line' that 'deniers' are especially politically motivated is simply not the case. It seems to be true at the media level, but falls apart at the scientific level. Many of the so-called 'deniers' in scientific circles seem to be remarkably active in a diverse range of subjects many of which are decidedly on the 'progressive' end of the generally perceived political spectrum. In the pure science end of things, the defining characteristic of a 'denier' (aka, 'skeptic') is that they are innately skeptical. Often enough they are also either tenured or retired for some reason.
---
On this topic, I'll again say to my skeptic commrades that there is nothing inherently defective with the concept that 'global climate change', or even the old term 'global warming', would result in such absurdities as global warming protests being canceled due to cold weather or ships sent to study polar ice loss being frozen in.
That said, a cynic such as myself will note the utility of changing 'global warming' to 'global climate change' to take advantage of the fact that it allows any weather event to be more widely used to bolster one's position (that ultimately rich people need to be paying carbon taxes.) And to a skeptic such as myself it is difficult to ignore how regularly this happens these days.
1984", at a time when it was just some crackpot cultist spleen, and he predicted it to become a major party platform.
The obly thing I agree is that using the word "climate change" as a weasel word to appease the self-appointed sceptics, uf those allegations od your crowd are true, wad both futile and silly