Can individuals and groups that deny climate change be found in breach of international accords?

To start, there is a funamental problem with your question: the numbers cited are totally speculative. It's impossible to attribute any single weather event to climate change- climatic models give averages over long periods of time, so while many models show that there is an expected increase in intensity of storms, drouts, and severe weather events, trying to say that any specific storm has emerged because of climate change is probably an exercise in futility at best and possibly disingenuous at worst. Having said that, nations, like people under the common law, are never under an obligation to act. For the individual, "Good Samaritan" statues, which require individuals to act, are an interesting diversion, but these are often considered unenforceable, or have dulling provisions such as "must act, so long as it puts the bystander in no danger" or something of the sort. In international law, even according to documents like the universal declaration of human rights, there is no affirmative duty to act. The most notable exception to this principle in international law is Responsibility to Protect, but in addition to being inapplicable in this instance, it is of dubious value in reality. Now, you may be familiar with the dance that US Officials engage in whenever genocide is occurring and they avoid calling the ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide, or human rights violations, by that specific term so as to avoid obliging the United States to intervene. However, that is due to a domestic statute, not international treaty. Thus, the general gist of my answer is that even if your numbers were accurate and widely accepted, I would in turn say, no individual or nation, in the absence of treaty or legislation, has a legal duty to act to save those people. Moral obligations however, are another matter, but I leave that to the philosophers.

Yes. Lets find people guilty of a crime for holding the wrong opinion. Then we can solve global warming by enslaving them and having them pull our cars around instead of burning oil.

No, denial of climate change is not considered a violation of international standards.  Scientific findings are not policed in this way. How can they? The best instrument you have, I guess, is peer review. I doubt that there is any 'government' that officially denies it, even in the U.S. And as the UN only deals with issues on national level, various shady interest groups are not really in their focus. The trouble with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial is that it is a bit more subtle and tries to obfuscate the issue not just directly deny it. It most of all hinders the scientific work and the development of effective policies against climate change. So the debate quickly shifts to *relativising* climate change. It becomes more a question of PR rather than science. Even if there was a law against denial, these people could always hide behind "critical thinking" or "constructive criticism". Unless you want an outright ban on free speech. I don't quite see though how the UN could enforce the *notion* of climate change itself, anyways. A better candidate for prosecution might be the actual pollution and environmental damage that various nations create. Climate change or no climate change, we cannot go on like that forever, so much is for sure. But all this would have to be a matter of international agreement first. The closest we got so far is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol. But you can't enforce that if the main player keeps sulking about it. PS: Also please avoid using the Holocaust. We don't really need a reversed Godwin's law. Anybody can start trivialising this and point out that there are  1,2 million deaths in traffic each year too. (I am saying this just to illustrate that the figures as horrific as they are, are not yet traumatic and don't affect the powerful countries directly,  that is those that would be able to enforce such measures).

People who deny the coming glaciation are worse than people who deny any change in the current climate. But it does not matter what you think about climate change, it is a no-op.   There is no action you can take to make any difference at all. Suppose you convert your city to use solar energy, or put carbon caps in place in the US.  The fact that you are then using less coal will drive down the price of coal, and as a result other countries will burn more of it. Every action you take is useless, every discussion is a waste of time.   I personally think that this is great, since I think that we will all die out in a glaciation unless we warm the polar oceans 6C or so. If you really want to solve global warming, there is really only two ways to be effective at it: 1.  A global dictatorship that controls how much energy people use 2.  Genocide - war, famine or disease that kills billions of people or better yet, a combination of the two things.   Anything lesser action will have zero effect (well, you could also invent a working fusion reactor, but it would be much easier to kill a few billion people). So to finally answer the question, punishing people that are denying climate change seems like a waste of time, since denying climate change (and also every other opinion/action wrt climate change) has no effect in the real world.

Obviously not. I'll ignore the debate, as it is not relevant. What better way to control people than declare any who dare to disagree as some sort of criminal. If they even tried that crap, any rational person would determine that the UN (if they did this) was now utterly worthless and had zero legitimacy. They already work against freedom enough(too many of their "votes" are from dictators or near dictators.    Second; can you show me which international accord forbids debate on science?