If you are "Happy to agree with AGW", you're not a climate denier, or even a climate skeptic as Scientific American would define it. (Unless, of course, your agreement with AGW is not really that). The article is about consilience of evidence, and doesn't even touch on mitigation, so it's hard to guess what you are reacting against.

Your characterisation of the controversy as religious is interesting to me. We would both probably apply the adjective "religious" to firmly held beliefs that are unsupported by the facts, but would disagree as to the facts. And we would both not apply the "religious" adjective to ourselves.