The only stable belief held by an average joe denier is "I don't want to change," maybe mixed to some degree with "the people who talk about climate change are my enemies politically so what they say has to be wrong". That's it.
If you read an average climate denier's arguments, they freely shift between "it's not happening", but "if it is happening, it's natural", but "if we are influencing it, we can't stop it", "but if we can stop it, it doesn't matter because China", and anyway "more CO2 is actually good". To some extent, this reflects a change in approach over time (and as informed by conservative think tanks who have to continually think up new talking points for the drones), as it becomes more and more obvious that the Earth is gradually warming as more CO2 and other greenhouse gases are emitted, just as scientists have been saying would happen for more than a century now. It's pretty amusing then to hear deniers to try to put forth the notion that climate scientists and those that support them are constantly changing their argument, which they frequently do (for ex., "in the '70s they were trying to scare us with talk of a new ice age!").