It says that people view it as a political argument instead of a scientific one. The vast majority of people who deny the existence of global warming do so on the basis of a few factors: isolated weather events, opposition to the changes involved in preventing it, opposition to the party involved in dealing with it, and a general belief that it's a conspiracy.
The isolated weather events explanation is the only one of these that's even close to scientific, but it's about as useful as a scientist going out, taking one data point, and coming back to write a research paper on it. The sun goes away at night, so therefore it must go away forever. A large snowstorm hits Washington D.C., so therefore global warming is a hoax. People don't understand the lack of knowledge that is associated with this, and to this extent, I'd say you're right on.
To the other extents, I'd say it's not a lack of education, but more the fact that people would rather listen to their gut than to scientists. Many people call out Al Gore when the man has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is correct. I don't care what he does, it doesn't affect the facts. But most people are just adamant about saying how hard it would be to shift, and while I agree that the transition is difficult, this mentality has held back renewable resource research for years. We're finally starting to get viable sources of renewable fuels, and yet most people don't even know about the successful ones (such as algal blooms that retain oil, which would reduce emissions by 75%) because they deny that anything could work. It's a political game to these people, not a scientific argument.
Edit: Alright, so I'm seeing two derivations of the arguments here that I didn't address. The first is Climategate. For those people who think Climategate is a major problem that represents the downfall of this theory, I have two responses. First, researchers went in after the Climategate scandal to investigate whether the data had actually been tampered with. It had not. There are several news sources that corroborate this. Second, even if it had been tampered with, the information doesn't reflect on the entire theory. That would be like saying that if someone decided to fabricate data on gravity, the entire theory of gravity would be disproven. And yes, gravity is a theory as well, mainly because it could also be disproven (for all we know, there are parts of the planet where gravity doesn't apply, that's why it's still a theory).
The other argument I'm seeing is the whole "we're not the ones causing this" argument, and honestly, this one's getting tiresome. There have been numerous experiments conducted in laboratories testing the effects of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane on the gasses that make up our atmosphere. There's no doubt that these two gasses are responsible for causing harm to the atmosphere. Whether you believe we're the main cause or not doesn't make a difference, the fact remains that we are a cause. The only response I've seen to this research is that we don't know the level of damage we're doing. I don't see that as a valid reason to keep increasing the amount of harmful gasses we throw into the atmosphere. Global warming is a theory, we certainly don't have all the information yet, but we have enough to know that we're certainly not making things any better.
Edit #2: Ah, some scientific responses. I've seen one good scientific response from a friend of mine that had some merit, and everyone else's has had numerous holes. Let's take a look at these:
Mathsorcerer - If the only scientific studies that had occured were those that test our atmosphere directly, you'd be right. The lack of controls makes any results impossible to interpret. Note, however, that experiments have been done testing the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere under controlled conditions. Yes, they've been much smaller scale, but since it's controlled, the studies have a lot of merit. That's utilizing the scientific method.
In response to your question, if the atmosphere were to disappear, it would be unprecedented in the history of life on this planet. Human beings could adapt...if they were given millenia during which to do so. We don't exactly reproduce all that quickly, and therefore we don't evolve all that fast.
No, we don't believe we have a significant impact on the planet. We believe the planet has a significant impact on us. We keep doing what we're doing and it will kill us off just like so many other animals on this planet have died off.
DrRosenpeenis and a couple of others have tried to turn this back to politics. As I've stated before, this is not a political game. No one's presented one piece of data that's actually been fabricated. I don't care who is doing the research, I care if the research is being done correctly. 40 years ago, we didn't have the tools to do the research, so I honestly don't buy the argument that we're just changing our story.