Interesting article in The Economist about
What psychology experiments tell you about why people deny facts. It's not about climate change specifically, though it does use it as an example, but it's very interesting on the general question of people's political biases affect not only their willingness but also their ability to accommodate facts and arguments that contradict their deeply-held political convictions.
One thing that struck me in the article, though it's really part of the argument, is what it quotes Individual 1 as saying:
Leaving aside the question both of Individual 1's intelligence and of the general validity of the concept of intelligence, it occurs to me that there's a big difference between, on the one hand, intelligence (however defined) and, on the other, professional knowledge and expertise.
I mean, I have no doubt that my regular physician is a very intelligent woman, as is my accountant. However, since I'm not a complete idiot, I wouldn't trust my accountant to give me sound medical advice, any more than I'd ask my doctor for her advice on how to fill in my tax returns. Intelligence is all very well, but it needs to be combined with knowledge and sound judgement before it can usefully be applied to specialised topics.