Climate change, also referred to as global warming, is one of the defining challenges of the 21st century. Despite considerable evidence that climate change is occurring and has severe consequences, many Americans remain skeptical and are impeding efforts to address the problem. The purpose of this dissertation is to build an understanding of the determinants of climate change perceptions among climate skeptics. Specifically, this research explores the extent to which political communication affects climate skeptics’ perceptions of the phenomenon. In total, three separate analyses were conducted using a national sample of climate skeptics (N = 4,001). The first analysis provides a profile of the average climate skeptic. Using descriptive data and responses from an open-ended question, the study provides a bird’s-eye view of the factors that might contribute to individual perceptions of climate change. The findings confirm those of existing research; particularly that climate skepticism is more prevalent among Republicans, older populations, low-income individuals, and those who identify as evangelical. Individuals report being skeptical of climate change because they believe that the narrative around climate change only advances the interests of elites. Individuals also cite factors such as media coverage, awareness of historical data, first-hand experiences with local weather, knowledge of the phenomenon (or lack thereof), and belief in a higher power as reasons for their climate skepticism. The second analysis employs a randomized survey experiment to examine whether framing climate messages as optimistic or fatalistic (i.e., the phenomenon is unstoppable by human action) affects the perceptions of climate skeptics (N = 827). The results show that the framing of an issue does not influence climate skeptics’ beliefs that (1) climate change is occurring or (2) that the phenomenon poses a risk of personal harm. Partisanship, however, does appear to moderate the relationship between message framing and support for adaptation and mitigation policy measures. In particular, Republican climate skeptics who receive optimistically framed messages about the impacts of existing adaptation and mitigation measures tend to increase their support for climate policy. The third analysis employs a randomized survey experiment to examine whether the identity of a political actor delivering climate change information (namely, their name and partisan affiliation) influences the beliefs of climate skeptics (N = 3,174). The findings show that climate skeptics are likely to increase their belief that (1) climate change is occurring and (2) climate change is anthropogenic when presented with messages from prominent public officials that share their partisan affiliation, particularly among Republicans. These effects are more pronounced when the participant voted for the identified public official. Additionally, high trust in a named messenger (e.g., Donald Trump) led to a greater belief that the phenomenon is (1) occurring and (2) caused by humans than high trust in an unnamed messenger (e.g., Congressional Republicans). The analyses also reveal a strong “Trump effect”, where Republican climate skeptics who received messages attributed to Donald Trump increased their climate beliefs to a greater extent than their counterparts in the other treatment groups. The analyses presented in this dissertation show that climate skeptics are open to updating their beliefs about the phenomenon. While existing research has studied the impacts of framing and identity on individual beliefs of climate change, few studies have examined how different political communication approaches might affect an individual’s perceptions of climate change. Even fewer studies focus solely on climate skeptics. My contribution to the field is a nuanced understanding of the average climate skeptic’s psyche and decision-making processes as it pertains to updating their climate beliefs. Tailored climate communication efforts by policymakers and public leaders can bridge the knowledge gap between scientists and communities. Decision-makers can leverage these findings to increase public support for pro-environmental policies and the uptake of climate-smart interventions.