http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApKvie5J_.B1pnQlT7eTH0fsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071029112829AA3u4UJ

While there are many conservatives who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming (some famous ones are Bush, Gingrich, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Brownback – those last 2 are Creationists, by the way), it's true that virtually everyone who denies the issue is a conservative.

My explanation is that almost everything in the USA has become politicized, including many scientific issues. Stem cell research and teaching evolution in schools are 2 notable examples. On many such issues, conservatives take a faith-based approach over a scientific one. The same is true of global warming – many conservatives seem to have faith that humans are not responsible or that it's not a critical problem despite the vast amounts of scientific evidence otherwise. I think liberals in general hold science in higher regard than conservatives.
References :

Newt Gingrich just published a book on a conservative view of global warming. He's very green.

Historically, many republicans have been leaders in the conservation movement.

Global Warming is not an us or them matter. It's some that that we all need to work on together to find the best solutions.
References :

The problem is that the global warming advocates are not using proper science to advance their agenda.

The Kyoto Protocols and other concepts tied to the concept of global warming have as much to do with the advancement of a socialist agenda as they do combating pollution.

If the global warming conspirators will stop lying and change their goals to making a cleaner environment you might be able to get a few more conservatives on board.

Until then kindly stop p!ssing on my leg and telling me it is raining.
References :

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay got involved in politics because he hated the regulations that government placed on pesticides (he was in the exterminator business). Likewise, many conservatives did not like the degree of control contained in the first generation of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (having government agencies decide the appropriate technology to reduce polution from new major sources — e.g. new power plants, major factories and refineries).

On Clean Air and Clean Water, the conservatives originally supported a cap and trade type system. From a free-market economics perspective, such a system makes sense because it recognizes that there is a cost to pollution (the health impact on people downwind and downstream) and places that cost on the polluter. The polluter can then decide whether it is a cheaper to reduce the pollution from their source or to buy spare credits from another polluter. In addition, such a system gives an incentive for the development of more cost-efficient technology.

The conservatives have opposed such a system on global warming because of the difficulty of implementing a fair system. Contrary to some suggestions, it is clear that there will be a cost on future generations if there are not drastic reductions in green house gases. However, those are future generations, and, as with other issues, it is easier to pass on the costs to the future rather than give up the benefits we receive today from the status quo.
References :

Besides, how the hell am I suppose to take this seriously?

http://globalwarminglife.com/articles/science-news/cattle-farm-emissions-leading-environmental-pollution/

"A University of Chicago study examined the average American diet and found that all the various energy inputs and livestock emissions involved in its production pump an extra 1.5 tons of CO2 into the air over the course of a year, which would be avoided by a vegetarian diet. Thus, the researchers found, cutting out meat would do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than trading in a gas guzzler for a hybrid car."

Short answer: It is insanity. Longer answer: What the hell, so to save the planet we should all stop eating meat. What's more, hybrid cars and carbon credits won't be enough anyway, cows do more harm than EVERY mode of modern transportation. And just not eating the meat won't be enough. Hell, if we don't eat the meat less cows will die and that means more global warming. So no, we have to kill every single cow to save the planet. But the vegetarians will tell us cows have rights to, they're living beings to, so we shouldn't eat them. So now we have to commit GENOCIDE to save the planet.

There's another side to it as well: propaganda. You did it yourself. If we don't accept man-made global warming, then we're obviously not for conserving energy or making the air cleaner. That is simply a lie. Nearly every Conservative I know or have heard or seen or read is all for clean energy for all sorts of reason. Less dependence on foreign oil, lower gas prices, cleaner air, better quality of living, less pollution. And yet Liberals, YES Liberals, ignore all of that to push the man-made global warming hysteria then turn around and lie about what those evil Conservatives want. That's propaganda. Liberals, AGAIN Liberals, blame President Bush for global warming (and everything else). Not once will any of these Liberals admit that President Bush has spent more on researching clean technologies than any other President. Again, ignoring the truth to further your own agenda is propaganda. Note that in both examples I said Liberals, not everyone who believes in man-made global warming. For perfect examples of propaganda see the posts by alyson c, suspensionsdontwork10 and pOrkrOd. Simply repeating a party line and falling back on insults and personal attacks.

Which brings me to the final point. It is not a left vs right issue. There are a lot of Republicans in and out of politics who believe in man-made global warming (I point to Shadowed above). There a lot of Democrats in and out of politics who do not believe in man-made global warming. And yet Liberals want us all to believe its a left vs right issue. And you never stop to ask yourself why. You just repeat it.
References :