I see that the reason for climate change denial is two-fold; on one hand, climate change wrecking chaos is mainly restricted to projections, and on the other, climate change activists as a group express many qualities which make people not want to give weight to their claims, mainly naivete and arrogance. Since we're not seeing too significant effects of climate change yet, people would need to research the subject in order to get an accurate image of possible future scenarios. But how they see climate change activist group expressing themselves puts them off the subject. Psychologically the best option in this cases is denialism of some amplitude.

I'm not trying to crucify any group here by the way. This is just how I see the issue.

I think you nailed it. This is exactly what I think too. I've had many a conversation with climate change deniers and the rebuttal is pretty much always a (mostly valid) list of examples of naivete and arrogance. Often times the people best equipped to identify the problem are too close to it (or too myopic) to come up with a good solution to the problem that balances environmental efficacy with economic stability/growth, etc. Since a discussion on climate change almost always includes the person's preferred solution, it's easy to attack/dismiss. I try to point out that having bad solutions doesn't invalidate the existence of the problem, but at that point the motives are suspect and presumption of good faith is completely gone. It certainly doesn't help that a very small but vocal minority have boldly predicted the end of the world many times in the past. It's easy for a denier to look at that and laugh and dismiss the current warnings based on the past, much like we do with people predicting the end of the world based on Biblical numerology.

I wish there were enough naturally curious people willing to dive into the data and come to their own conclusions. When you look at the history of Earth's climate, and the speed with which greenhouse gases natural release into the environment, and compare it to the speed with which they now release (due to burning of fossil fuels, reduction of trees/plants that trap it) it is really quite common sense that what we're doing is not a good idea to continue indefinitely.