Ainda sobre as razões da recusa em aceitar o aquecimento global

Este artigo ficou de fora do que foi dito, e referenciado aqui, sobre os motivos da ainda não aceitação do aquecimento global, e da responsabilidade humana nele, não obstante a ciência até agora produzida e aos factos indiciadores da validade:

•  Open Left:: Why the right denies anthropogenic climate change: "Digby, Amanda Marcotte and Krugman traded thoughts recently on what exactly it is about climate science that so sets off the right in opposition. It's an important question. The right, while opposed to environmentalism in most regards, could in past at least see what side of the bread is buttered. The Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, after all, was negotiated and ratified in the era of Reagan, Thatcher and even in Canada, Mulroney. Thatcher herself was an early believer in the need for concerted action to address Climate Change. Why (aside from her education in chemistry) is she basically alone on this? I like Krugman's answer the best of the three, but even so I think he comes up short, particularly on the anti-intellectualism angle. What's really happening is that anthropogenic climate change is a fundamental assault on right wing ideology and the solution requires a worldwide implementation of liberal policies that will undercut right wing ideas at every level well into the future. Right wingers maybe do not grasp this fear consciously, but intuitively everything about this issue stinks for them. Denial is the only way to save their worldview."