Why has global warming become a Liberal vs Conservative issue?

Why are liberals accepting the idea of global warming, and conservatives dismissing it? How did this become a political issue? Isn't the real issue above partisan politics?Why has global warming become a Liberal vs Conservative issue?
Both liberal and conservatives want clean air, clean water and a healthy environment. The difference comes in their basic philosophies.





Liberals believe the government should get involved and fix the environment through a series of laws. The want to tax polluters. They want to cut back on our use of energy. They want the government to put controls on how many miles our cars must get per gallon of gas. They want to join Kyoto and place stops on our industrial growth.





Conservatives believe that we can still grow and let the free market find the solutions for our environmental problems. We will have more gasoline efficient cars when the public buys them. We will have biofuels, oilgae, etc. when the free market makes it economically viable. People will start producing mini refineries in their back yard to produce bio-diesel and all sorts of things in our future that we cannot imagine today. Many of our legislative actions will be counterproductive to the creativity of human ingenuity.





Therefore conservative don't even want to believe that global warming exists. If they admit it exists then they would have to do something about it... and that would be contrary to their basic philosophy of allowing free market capitalism to run its own course.Why has global warming become a Liberal vs Conservative issue?
Global warming, as John F. so succinctly explained, is a scientific theory not yet proven.





But the political debate isn't so much ';liberal vs conservative'; as it is ';self-government vs others-government'; or ';freedom vs slavery.';





Those who would restrict otherwise peaceful people at gunpoint in an attempt to force their beliefs upon the nation are the antithesis of liberal, yet it is the liberals who seem to gravitate toward the ';force'; solution in this debate (and all the others as well.) The fact that some conservatives are now realizing that they too can grab more wealth and power via the coercive powers afforded via environmental laws bodes ill for our heretofore libertarian-conservative Republican Party which has been sinking fast into the mire of authoritarianism to join the Democrats (case in point: G.W. Bush).
Sadly, if you were on a small boat with 10 people and 2 people fell overboard, there would probably be some on the boat that would argue against various forms of offering aid because of their own dogmatic political ideology. Meanwhile, the 2 would drown.





You are right, global warming is first and foremost a scientific issue. The science has come to a very high level of confidence that it's real and will cause significant problems if not addressed.





How and when we deal with the problem does fall into the realm of politics. But if we deal with it is a no-brainer for anyone not buried above their eyes in their own political dogma.
It's not. Thoughtful conservatives also know it's real, and mostly caused by us. Many of them are annoyed at deniers who make the Conservative movement look bad.





';Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming';





';National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate';





';Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”





';I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial.';





Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.





';The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now.';





James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.
It's not about denying anything. It's a resistance to the constant parade of scare tactics dripped on the public like Chinese water torture. drip-drip-drip. Every five to ten years some new scare is cooked up that is later disproven and then another fear comes up. Global warming is the sexiest one so far. Did we fix the holes in the ozone? Did we solve the problem of acid rain? Is terrorism on the wane? Remember when Y2K was supposed to send us back to a pre-industrial existence? What a let-down that was!





As to the ';science'; of global warming. The debate is never over. Science is a self-correcting process and to stifle the dissent against global warming is intellectual dishonesty. That is not what the discipline of science is based on, shutting people up.





Why does Al Gore never take up the challenge of a debate to defend his position? Surely he has the confidence in his own studies to back up what he says. No, he shouldn't have to do it all the time, but it's not too much to ask to do it as least once.