I dont think there's any evidence that liberals are more willing to compromise than conservatives. I'm not a conservative myself, but I dont think there's any empirical justification for this.
Have you paid attention to politics? Democrats and liberals constantly compromise their bills, their plans, their agenda's, and the Republicans constantly refuse to compromise or even agree to the agreements they already came up with.
Also, to clarify what I mean, in American, "conservatives" and "liberals" differ by degree, not by kind. You're conservative, but historically and comparatively speaking, you are quite liberal.
Personally, I find that political compromise isn't always a good thing. One should stick to principles, especially congress members. For example, one shouldn't vote for a bill simply because its more of a compromise relative to a previous version. If its wrong, stick to your beliefs. Thats why the people voted you into office.
I think this is a good reason why the above is true.
Politically, I think it's necessary to compromise. There's a difference between compromising on a political bill, in order to get something done, than compromising your personal beliefs. If you're actually fighting for your ideals (and not a corrupt piece of shit), then this will be reflected in the bill that results.
And yes, quality is still important, not sure what "more of a compromise" would entail in all situations, becuase you can meet in the middle in many many many different ways.
Moreover, scientists should apply this also. Fact is, global warming isn't scientifically proven. As someone who deals firsthand with the financial models that destroyed the economy because they overreached, I know how easily these models fail when they try to describe something as chaotic and non-linear as a system such as the earth's climate. There are literally millions of variables that influence temperature, and no current mathematical generalizations have been able to accurately predict future temperatures.
Being skpetical about climate change is exteremly scientific. I liken people like Al Gore to religious fanatics who are as far from scientifiic as possible.
The basics of global warming are undeniable, CO2 and greenhouse gases
do raise the temperature of the planet, and they're also pollution and harmful in other ways.
On top of this:
Ocean AcidificationI don't get why you're skeptical only in one direction. I'm fully skeptical about what exactly will happen to the planet, but taking that same view of human ignorance, isn't it quite stupid to keep pumping chemicals into an ecosystem we don't understand? Are we going to destroy the planet? No, that's merely anthropocentric bullshit. Ya, the planets temperature has fluctuated in the past; but are you aware of the consequences, and in some cases the cause? The first photosynthetic life forms nearly destroyed the planet for all known forms of life, and they're just fucking bacteria. Also, these temperature shifts have not always been kind to the then current life forms; you're a current life form.