In an interesting development, Bob Ward has explained on Twitter what he means when he calls someone a "denier". In response to a question from David Rose he explained that he used the terms with respect to GWPF because:
It denies the risks indicated by the scientific evidence in order to justify its ideological opposition to GHG cuts.
So interestingly, denial now seems not to refer to anything to do with radiative physics or climate sensitivity or any of the nitty gritty that so preoccupies us here in the climate blogosphere. It's something to do with risks and perhaps their perception.
Bob is now desperately trying to justify his new claim, suggesting that we read Nigel Lawson's Standpoint essay for evidence that he denies that there are risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, Lawson begins his discussion of impacts by saying that:
There are plainly both advantages and disadvantages from a warmer temperature, and these will vary from region to region depending to some extent on the existing temperature in the region concerned.
I remember ribbing Bob a year or so ago about the fact that he kept linking to papers that turned out not to support the case he was trying to make. It seemed to be a case of him thinking "if I link to something weighty-looking nobody will check". After this he was a bit more careful. His citation of Lawson therefore represents something of a reversion to type.