A bit of both. What it comes down to now with GW is that if you're on the left you automatically assume that GW is real, giving greater credence to all of the arguments/evidence in favor of man-caused climate change and giving short shrift to any arguments or evidence detracting from the theory.
For people on the right the reaction seems to be exactly the obvious. They come at it from the viewpoint of "This is what the left believes, and it would cost us a lot of money, therefore they must be wrong."
Yeah, I get a bit tired of it.
In general, the person or persons making the assertion bear the burden of proof. If you go shouting, "ZOMG! De CO2s is gonna fry us allz!", then its on YOU to show a preponderence of real, non-cherry-picked evidence that it is so, and to share your data and methodologies for scrutiny - ESPECIALLY when advocating massive wealth transfers and decreases in standards of living.
In my humble experience, if one is in fact telling the TRUTH, one does not need to manipulate data, cherry-pick data, squash dissent, fabricate data, withhold computer algorithms, etc, etc, etc. That behavior in general is indicitive of deceit.
