Science itself isn’t really divided on the issue of Global Warming. The data in support of the human contribution to global warming is vast. The motivation for Big Oil and right-wing radio shock-jocks to attack global warming is obvious ($$$).

But what reason does the average unwashed person have to attack those seeking change in climate and energy policy?

Reducing emissions would reduce polution, reduce long-term energy costs, and increase economic prosperity across the entire Western World.

What motivation does the average right-wing person have to so visciously attack the policies of climate change? Why isn’t the connection between Big Oil profits and current policy as obvious to them as it is to any informed individual?

Given that there are no real downsides to adjusting energy policy to utilize better, more efficient fuels… why is the right-wing so focused on attacking science?
Responses should not include discussion of Al Gore. Al Gore did not originate the study of global warming. It’s not his idea, nor does he claim it is.

Attacking Al Gore is out of bounds for this question, and only shows an extreme bias on the part of the answering individual.
Pointing out that global warming, in general, is part of a natural trend is also out of bounds. That is not disputed by environmental scientists… why would it be? They explained the cycle of ice age/warming trend in the first place. That global warming has a natural component is not a revelation.

What is also not being disputed in science is that there is a human component to global warming in effect right now.

We’re talking about policy here. There are no downsides to a progressive energy policy. Why does the right-wing constantly attempt to derail positive movement in energy policy? What is the motivation of the average conservative in doing so?
Clarification: I did not change the rules of the question. I set some limits on the stock answers that people were giving.

Al Gore is out of bounds because my question was, simply put, not about Al Gore. If Al Gore comes into it in any way it’s because people don’t like Al Gore. I already know that some people don’t like Al Gore, that’s not enlightening. And anyone disagreeing with Global Warming because they don’t like Al Gore doesn’t really have a valid reason. Al Gore and global warming are two different things.

I put "because it’s a natural phenomenon" out of bounds because that’s not a good answer either. I even, in my original question, listed other benefits to a progressive energy policy besides avoiding global warming.

It’s called clarification. People answering "Al Gore" and "Global warming is natural" simply weren’t answering the question. The question was not "do you believe in global warming?" It was regarding opposition to policy changes.