When someone on the right publishes a paper on say guns and crime, they publish the paper, their data sources, and their methodology as they should. A scientific paper should be subject to peer review, a checking of the relevance of the data and the analytical methods used.
When someone on the left publishes a paper on say climate, the underlying data, its sources, and the mathematical analyses are a closely guarded secret and asking to see any of it is regarded as an overt attempt to steal the invention and the writers girlfriend. This stems mostly from the ridicule heaped on people who take otherwise good data and "adjust" it until the correct result appears when they're caught at it. Experience has shown that climate predictions need to be made about events far enough in the future that your favorite candidates endorsement of them won't be used to show him a fool in the next election.
Here's a collection of end-of-the-world climate predictions that unfortunately didn't work out. Some of them were from Pope Al whom some in the Democratic party are calling for to run for president this year and save the party from Hillary.