How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

---