I think it's largely because they're reflexively against any regulation or tax on business, because they ideologically believe that everything good in the country comes from big businesses and rich people. (While they claim to also be for small business, in reality small businesses regularly get screwed by their unconstrained big business contributors.) It used to be mainly in the form of ludicrously inflated claims about the harm these taxes or regulations would do; it was during the tobacco fight that they first refined the techniques of manufactured uncertainty, denying the actual facts as politically motivated rather than just the policy decisions based on them.

Stephen Colbert's satire that whatever makes the most money is automatically the best is the actual belief of a lot of these guys, and we've been successful enough at eliminating burning rivers and choking smog that they can convince a lot of ordinary folks that the ones who are going to do them harm are the environmentalists, not the polluting industries.

It is flabberghasting. The jury is apparently still out on climate change, evolution, and possibly gravity. According to my father (a frustratingly conservative man), if the majority of the scientific community favors a theory that includes climate change adversely effected by human activities, then said scientists are likely influenced by a liberal agenda of some sort (the scientific method agenda maybe?). Despite many attempts at logical discourse, I cannot significantly sway these predisposed beliefs. I had him thinking when I described ice-core evidence, but it was quickly forgotten.

Global warming was never mentioned in the Bible. At least people have seen Adam and Eve.