Peter Gleick was actually honored at the annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference last month!
My career was as a meteorologist, working for the Department of Defence. I interacted with a number of peers. With those who supported the hypothesis of AGW, I would tell them that the science was not even close to proving the case.
Their response was generally of this sort: Well, the science is not there, but if we wait for the science to be proved, it will be too late! Besides, look at what is required to respond to AGW. It requires more conservation of resources, less dependence on petroleum, and generally more control over society by experts. These are all very good things, so if we are wrong about AGW, it does not really matter, no harm comes from it, only good things.
This is a subset of the case that people are much less sceptical of “facts” that lead to actions which they want done. Anyone can fall to that sort of bias. It would not make a difference if the ability to reinforce or refute those views was pretty much the same across the political spectrum.
But, it is not. The MSM is in lockstep with the “more government is good” position, so it overpowers the opposition a hundred to one.