dem dare furriners just be unedumicated!

That's the default assumption, so there's little point in continuing in that vein.

In other cases it's self-serving bias.

"Climate change is human-driven. We, of course, are not responsible. In fact, we can use that to get stuff, whether psychological or real. Psychological--we know that those nasty, wealthy, oppressor anglos like the French and Germans are even more nasty than we suspected. But perhaps we can get them to give us billions of dollars to help us become wealthier. Otherwise we will contribute to global warming, but it's not our fault we want to be prosperous."

"Climate change is not human-driven. If it were, we would then be responsible for something that's probably very bad. That means we have been irresponsible and our self-image is incorrect--in fact, perhaps we should do something that would hurt our lifestyle, prosperity, or the amount of wealth we have."

Even among those who agree that it's anthropogenic you get a lot of people that fit the description of that last paragraph. It's not their fault, since they've had the right attitudes for a long time and been saying something must be done. Instead, it's the fault of their domestic political foes. (For many, the facts aren't really important; what's important is the psychology of blame and self-justification, and that pretty much determines what claims they're willing and ready to accept as fact.)

and more around the issues that do actually divide them.

All of that has been working very well for politicians and the rich, aka the plutonomy, but not so well for the rest of us.