Denier is widespread term used to describe someone who rejects scientific or historically provable facts. No one here is talking about the Holocaust.
However your use of the term 'climategate' is a rather more clear attempt to smear by directly invoking political scandal.
It should be noted that the so called 'climategate emails were a concerted attempt to deceive and was thoroughly debunked, as in here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#/editor/0
And I believe 'anti-science' would cover the death threats made to climate scientists, together with the threat that they should not publish further scientific papers supporting the accepted theory of anthropogenic global warming, covered in the link.
Indeed the whole 'climategate controversy was a clear attempt to distract and manipulate public opinion at a crucial time:
Among the scientists whose emails were disclosed, the CRU's researchers said in a statement that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious",[18] and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem."[63] Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the emails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists."[20] He also said that climate change sceptics had selectively quoted words and phrases out of context, and that the timing suggested an attempt to undermine talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.[64] Tom Wigley, a former director of the CRU and now head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, condemned the threats that he and other colleagues had received as "truly stomach-turning", and commented: "None of it affects the science one iota. Accusations of data distortion or faking are baseless. I can rebut and explain all of the apparently incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do so."[50] In relation to the harassment that he and his colleagues were experiencing, he said: "This sort of thing has been going on at a much lower level for almost 20 years and there have been other outbursts of this sort of behaviour – criticism and abusive emails and things like that in the past. So this is a worse manifestation but it's happened before so it's not that surprising."[65]
Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, called the incident a smear campaign.[66] David Reay of the University of Edinburgh said that the CRU "is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels. The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science."[50] Stephen Schneider compared the political attacks on climate scientists to the witch-hunts of McCarthyism.[67]
) are wrong, it could mean the end of humanity.
