Same as anything else. The science supports/is congruent with "democrat" beliefs and positions. In general, democrats support large government programs and mandates that (theoretically) benefit society. Most of these programs are reactive. People are poor? Guarantee them houses and food. Don't make much money? Enforce a "living" wage. Gas gets too high? Fix prices. Etc. The general theme is that the government should step in to right injustices and be active.
Climate change fits in right along with this. If the climate is going to change drastically enough to change the way we live then the obvious move is to find a bureaucratic solution. If people are causing the change then something can be done about it. But go find a study with conclusive evidence that price and wage fixing are harmful to those they are supposed to help, and a "typical" democrat will tell you that's a bunch of BS. So much for trusting the scientific process! We are all hypocritical in some respects, and democrats are not somehow different, superior people that are impervious to accepting "evidence" that goes along with their viewpoint and discrediting that which doesn't.
This narrative about conservatives being a pack of chanting druids is ridiculous. Just look at the national dialog, esp in the media. If you don't trust climate science then you are a "denier". A "denier" implies that one does not accept something that is patently true. You are covering your ears and tralala-ing as loud as you can. Well nobody wants to be the idiot who won't accept the obvious so they join the "crowd". The whole discussion is slanted right off the bat. Etc.
As for the thread topic, I am in the same boat as most everyone else. I have no problem with science. But the "science" behind global warming/climate change is very fuzzy. A conclusion is based on data derived from assumptions built on assumption built on assumptions. It's like the old radioactive fallout equations. A bunch a variables with no real known value were multiplied together to get a "scientific" answer to a problem with large scale ramifications on the earth. Then everybody took that data and ran with it because it was the best they had and you certainly can't afford to be wrong in such circumstances. And because the math is foggy we get this whole "consensus" drivel. The conclusion of the climate models can not be proved, their accuracy can not be proved, many variables within the models can not be proved, so the makers of such models have to resort to "everybody else is doing it too". Well that's just stellar logic. So we get to this point of, "if it is true we are doomed; we have no better data; we MUST try something just in case". I refuse to accept those assumptions because crap data is crap data no matter how much of it there is. There is no need to jump for the sake of jumping.
This was meant to be a short, 3-sentence tops post, but I got a little carried away. Sorry.