For decades, rhetoric has been utilized by both politicians and those in the scientific community to convey either support for or denial of the existence of climate change. This study combined two forms of rhetoric in the forms of both framing and politicization to determine which form of rhetoric is most powerful in influencing a person’s attitudes and behavioral intentions. Pro climate change frames are expected to increase support for climate change action, while anti climate change politicization is expected to decrease support for climate change action. The results of this study show that select frames have the intended effect of influence on increasing support for climate change measures. Surprisingly, the results also show that politicization that questions the science of climate change has the power to both increase and decrease support for attitudinal measures with regard to climate change.