past year, the Wall Street Journal opinion page was misleading on climate science more than 80 percent of the time. In many instances, speakers and writers rejected climate science in a way that was clearly tied to ideological views they held regarding climate change policy. One notable example was a long interview between Sean Hannity and Sen. James Inhofe, in which they repeatedly referred to climate change as a "hoax" while expressing support for coal, oil and gas drilling. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal column argued, "We are in the middle of what you might call a global warming bubble. It is a failure of the global warming theory itself and of the credibility of its advocates, but also a failure of the various 'green energy' schemes proposed as a substitute for fossil fuels." It's frustrating for those of us who value and appreciate science to see such dismissive representations of climate science in these outlets. And it's alarming for renewable energy advocates to see such similar arguments being made against clean energy technology and policies. So why do we see these ideological takes on climate change pop up in the media and public so often? A study published in the Journal of Risk Research proposed a possible answer: fundamental beliefs we have about how society should function deeply affect how we perceive scientists' findings about risks society faces. For instance, the study concluded that people who are satisfied with the distribution of wealth in society and who favor individual