I would start with not calling people "climate change deniers" . I haven't really seen it on this thread, but have seen it at other times on this site. It is inaccurate. There is no one I know that is arguing that climate change doesn't exist. They are denying your reasons as to why it exists.
That's just because the argument shifts.
1. There is no climate change. So we shouldn't do anything.
2. There is climate change, but it's natural. So we shouldn't do anything.
3. There is climate change, and it's man-made, but we shouldn't do anything because it's a good thing. So we shouldn't do anything.
4. There is climate change, and it's man-made, and it's a bad thing, but we shouldn't do anything because it'd be too expensive. So we shouldn't do anything.
5. There is climate change, and it's man-made, and it's a bad thing, and fixing it in the West would actually make us money, but what about those poor people in the Third World? So we shouldn't do anything.
The more intelligent ones are using the fifth argument, and that's pretty smart, because the environmentalist movement is not full of smart people, so it has foolishly insisted on making socially progressive views part of a package deal, so "what about the Third World?" cuts into them pretty hard. But not all of the denialists are that intelligent so they might still be using some of the older arguments.
Later the arguments will become,
6. There is climate change, and it's man-made, and it's a bad thing... but it's too late now. So we shouldn't do anything.
The "denialist" part is denying the need for or desirability of action. Of course, this also means they must deny the finiteness of fossil fuels. In this they are joined by the environmentalists. Environmentalists and denialists alike are joined by being part of a consumerist society. The concept that we should consume less stuff is inconceivable to us.