Are liberals incapable of seeing their own bias?

Question

YannisRizos rolled back this question, because:

"the edit changed the intent of the post too much. Editing is not a good way of challenging the technical accuracy of a question, if you wish to do so please do it by posting an answer. This way the community can thoroughly evaluate your facts and arguments, something that's not possible with edits"

First off, let's examine this claim that my edit "challenged the technical accuracy of the question". My edit removed one word from the title, deny, and it added catastrophic human caused to global warming. Firstly, "deny" is a loaded term. It assumes that the person with doubt is wrong. Liberals frame questions about global warming this way so that they can start from the premise that global warming is true. The OP made it very clear that they didn't want any answers that challenged that "fact" ("I'm not asking for arguments about whether catastrophic human caused global warming is true." ... "I am looking for judgment-free answers.")

So, what if some ones answer was, because Conservatives realize that global warming "science" is wrong. It is just a ploy to institute wealth redistribution. Opps, there I go making a judgement. The OP should trust that our answers are judgement-free to begin with instead of poisoning the well against anyone who might agree with the denialists. Secondly, "global warming" is the old terminology. This was changed to anthropogenic (human caused) global warming when it was clear that SUVs weren't around during the Medieval Warm period, and people might get the wrong idea that maybe all these climate changes might be natural cycles. Then it was changed to "climate change", so it wouldn't matter if it got colder or hotter, "global warming" couldn't be denied.

My Edit:

Why is denyingdisbelief of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming associated with conservatives?

I'm not asking for arguments about whether catastrophic human caused global warming is true. I'm asking why denying the presence of catastrophic human caused global warming is primarily associated with a conservative political affiliation.

I am looking for judgment-free answers.

We are supposed to be encouraging rewriting questions/answers in nonpartisan terms, but it appears that the moderators are incapable or unwilling to allow others to correct these matters when they come from the liberal side. They have no trouble identifying and quickly acting when the bias is from the conservative side. Two questions I wrote with the specific point of making them biased were closed and even deleted (apparently, questions about why Democrats want to deny women the right to protect themselves against rapists on college campuses, affirmed by the Bill of Rights is too offensive).

So, we have a question that doesn't use the right terminology that leads to confusion. Do conservatives doubt that global warming doesn't occur by any means? Surely, they believe the globe is warmed by the suns direct light. Do they doubt the Greenhouse Effect, that warms our planet another 10+ degrees more than if it didn't have an atmosphere? Do they doubt that the climate is changing? Surely not, it is always changing. No, what they doubt is that humans have little effect on the climate, and that changes to the climate will not be catastrophic, but regulations to limit carbon emissions and stifle the economy will have catastrophic effects.

Yannis's change actually didn't improve the original question, and probaly caused more confusion. The OP wanted to know why conservatives take issue with global warming. This could simply be answered by examing conservatives positions on the matter, and explaining why they object (huge waste of money with no appreciable results, redistribution of wealth from rich productive nations to poor unproductive ones, climate models with poor predictive accuracy, ...)

Why is denying global warming a conservative cause associated with conservatives?

I didn't make all the changes I wanted to, because I thought that those changes would be considered too drastic. If I was rewording the question today, I would probably say:

Why aren't conservatives as concerned about human-caused climate change as other political groups?

Conservatives don't seem as concerned about the consequences of human-caused climate change. Why are they less concerned? I am not asking for arguments about if climate change is occurring, but what reasons conservatives give for why we shouldn't take any actions to prevent it from occurring.

Answer 1

It is always perfectly legitimate to answer a question by calling implicit bias or false assumption into question. Indeed, on Christianity.SE, just about every one of my highest rated answers does so.

If a question has a grammatical error or if it expresses its intent poorly, then editing the question is a good idea.

If the question begins from a false premise, then a response is far more helpful. It presents the "error" and shows the correction, which is far more instructive. Especially where the question is perceived as an Argument, Because of X, Y, therefore Z, an answer that challenges Y and thus breaks the chain is actually the most effective.

If I am unsure of a question edit, I am happy to point out to the OP a potential change that preserves the intent of their question, but I invite them to roll back. I'll admit- I hate when they do. But if they choose to ignore helpful advice, then I know that the correct move is to either ignore the question, or go to an answer. Its amazing what a rationally sound observation of a false assumption can do, when presented as a response.