That you've met people more stupid than yourself isn't beyond belief, so I will accept your statement that there are conservatives saying Obama is a Muslim because his cousin is. I do believe this is the first time I've even heard such, I wasn't aware of his cousin at all.
Edit:(Rather than reword this first paragraph, I'll just note that it isn't actually meant to be inflammatory, it's entirely literal. Any other offensive statements in this post were meant as such.
A question though, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Unlike Obama's Muslim ties, which are real, and lead to an exceedingly small percentage of the horribly ignorant thinking he's a Muslim because his cousin is, the majority of liberals think CO2 is pollution!
Now if you want to broad brush a political leaning for the idiocy of a percentage of it, I'd say one with completely no founding that encompasses a plurality is far more important than one with limited founding that encompasses far less.
To avoid the inevitable, as you obviously will refute it, yes, CO2 isn't pollution. The label of greenhouse gas does not make something pollution, there is a certain compound found in all life in vast quantities that happens to fall from the sky and is also a greenhouse gas. Perhaps you've heard of it?
CO2 is a necessary compound, vital to the continued existence of flora worldwide. The more CO2 we pump out, and the process of life makes vastly more than industry does, so much so that it's downright hilarious we're even worried, the more trees we feed. Where do you think all that wood comes from? They aren't carbon sinks because they need to clean the air, they're carbon sinks because life on earth is comprised almost entirely of hydrocarbons. No carbon, no life.
Liberals, generally, can be summed up thusly. Change is good. Look at history, good change is a process of elimination, one catastrophic fuck up after another. Thousands of civilizations have risen and fallen to get the logical courses of action that this country was founded on. The progressive ideals aren't even new, they're already been done failures of the past.
We founded this country on the rather sound principles of a substantially educated group of people. The musings of philosophers, critics and revolutionaries that came before them were the foundation of their own ideals, the failings of past governments the evidence that they had a better idea. They didn't found a government that was supposed to be one great evolution towards progress, they were terrified of it and put quite a lot of effort into constructing a government that could change as little as possible. Jefferson still warned that we'd need a revolution every so often to unfuck the place. We're more than a century overdue by his estimation, and about sixty years beyond necessity by my observations. Government was supposed to be small, limited in power, with specific roles, the primary ones being to provide for the common defense and form relations with other governments.
The root of the conservative ideal is that the collective knowledge of the whole is vastly greater than the collective knowledge of the few or the one. It's entirely logical, unavoidable. No one man can know everything, the more power one man has, the more people that one man will fuck up. Even with the best intentions, regulations can never be written that will not hinder society. The more it controls, the more decay it creates. If you really are interested, proof abounds. Reading anything by Thomas Sowell would be an excellent start.