Sounds a whole lot like you're trying to cast doubt on it. There's as close to a scientific consensus as you're likely to ever get that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we're the cause of it.
What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular position.
The parent quite rightfully points out that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, and you want to ping them for casting doubt. What you should be doing, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, is trying to find out how, in this case, causation can be disproven, to better advance knowledge.
Trying to throw someone from the temple for casting doubt belongs to religion, not science.
Can you clarify what you mean by 'climate denial'. I don't know what that is supposed to describe.
Climate models are tough and it's very difficult for us to forecast what the results of global warming will be, especially at local scales. That doesn't change the fact, well supported by science and not seriously doubted by any meaningful number of climate scientists, that the Earth is getting warmer and it's almost certainly due to our burning of fossil fuels.
There are two groups who try to make AGW seem less certain than it is: energy companies who have a financial interest in not seeing government action against carbon emissions, and libertarians who feel threatened by the reality of AGW as it would seem to mandate large-scale, international government regulations. That would call into question deeply held libertarian beliefs about the ability of the free market to achieve societal goods and avoid evils. Just as religious people (rightly) view evolution as a threat to their beliefs and respond by attacking evolution, so too do libertarians view AGW as a threat to theirs and respond in the same fashion.
ID is a specific theory which you either support or you don't.
When does a person specifically support 'climate denial'?
If I say that the observed sensitivity is less than the forecast sensitivity from models, am I in denial?
If I note that the warming period from around 1979-2000 has paused, am I in denial?
If I state that the regulatory frameworks suggested and implemented have failed, am I in denial?
If I make statements that project historical climate change shows large variations, am I in denial?
The reason I ask this is there seems to be a drive to lump people into a category called 'denier', and I'm uncertain was to what that boundary is, as defined by the people who use it.
Everything you just stated about AGW falls into the same category, and is cherry-picked "evidence" intended to dispute that AGW is a fact, which for all intents and purposes it is. Neither you nor I have the ability to judge to what degree this or that deviation from predictions affects the theory as a whole. You know who does? Climate scientists. You know what they've concluded? It's still a fact.
You seem to be very concerned that you not be labelled a science denier (as well you should be), while simultaneously being very concerned about denying the conclusions reached by scientists. Like IDers, you seem to want to pick this or that small part of the theory or this or that piece of evidence, cast doubt on it, then claim that disproves (or at least discredits) the theory as a whole.
"Denial" is the correct term, here. In both cases, there are well-supported and widely accepted theories that particular groups of people don't want to believe for ideological reasons. In both cases, the drive to defend ideology takes the form of an attempt to piece together enough seemingly rational pieces of disjointed evidence to discredit the theory that threatens that ideology. And, in both cases, the attempt to deny the theory is refuted and dismissed by those best equipped to judge it.
You can claim to be a skeptic, just as the person who claims there are holes in evolution that can only be explained by an intelligent designer claims to be a skeptic, but you're not. A skeptic is not someone who disbelieves or discredits, but rather is someone who reserves judgement and attempts to find counterarguments until the preponderance of evidence suggests that a claim is valid. Both evolution and AGW are supported by the vast preponderance of evidence. Disbelieving either is no longer skepticism, but denial.