The present research bridged the relationship between cognitive complexity and belief in anthropogenic climate change and tested the differential effectiveness of two argument types. In the first two studies (with 817 and 226 participants, respectively) we found that participants with lower levels of cognitive complexity were less likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change than those with higher levels. In Study 3 we used an experimental design with 304 participants to examine the reactions to different types of arguments across people with differing cognitive complexity. We compared the two most common types of arguments in discussions of climate change: 1) Presenting facts about climate change on their own (one-sided); 2) Presenting opposing arguments (i.e., misinformation) together with the correct climate change facts (two-sided). Participants with lower cognitive complexity were more likely to believe in climate change when exposed to facts of climate change on their own compared to the two-sided, refutational combination of misinformation and facts; but those with higher cognitive complexity were more likely to believe in climate change when exposed to the refutational combination rather than facts alone. Media and scientists need to consider the cognitive complexity of their audience when dealing with climate change.