The political 1/2 who gets affected and what people benefit and who is hurt. Not that those are the reasons for doing anything, but that those consequences have to be addressed.
You tend to deal in what seems like absolutes like all liberals kick puppies, everything the EPA does is bad, all regulations are bad, and anyone who says GW is real and man plays a role wants to order you to do something. Rarely do you get specific or acknowledge that good people can take the real information and still disagree, honestly disagree, on what needs to be done. When they disagree, they're not fascists or destroying America or hate success. They just see the what should be done differently.
And yes, if someone today is saying man doesn't play a significant, not complete, role in GW, they are in denial. With that thought, I link this article:
Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.
Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.