Your post underscores my skepticism.
"Peer-reviewed" means little when these peers comprise a "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron). These peers might even be inclined to suppress dissenting opinions.
Your example scientist includes an exhaustive list of qualifications - for an AGW apologist. (Well, of course, he has written books and papers.)
Is honesty important, here? I believe that using the "denier" label is a dishonest tactic. (BTW, I do not "deny" the Holocaust.)
You then present me with a conditional statement (and question) that is reminiscent of Pascal's Wager. (The stakes, here, are just too high for you not to...)