They have a "Science and Technology" section in every single issue. Frankly, it contains some of the best, most scrupulously accurate science writing for a general audience that I've seen anywhere.

Also, just two weeks ago, they published a "leader" (primary article expressing the editorial position of the paper) that was very critical of climate change deniers.

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587224-all-means-que...

Evidently you don't consume the Economist very often.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-...

To put it in the language you seem to prefer, Bill O'Reilly thinks the Economist leans left. I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly's employers and will not send them traffic, but support for this claim is easily googled.

ETA: The link above is more flip than I'd like. Try this:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587224-all-means-que...

Economist is conservative (erm, right) by European standards. It just happens that it comes out as fairly left by American standards, given that we are so right of the continent.

I don't think that the Economist is a reactionary right-wing publication (at least, not the editorial board), but I do think there are people on its staff who are sympathetic to the climate change denialists.

That said, I think the piece is puzzling, not that I'm sure it's a right-wing hatchet job on science.

I am a "liberal" and a huge fan of The Economist. I don't find this to be an accurate assessment. Someone else already linked to their climate change stance, and in my experience their economic stances are generally supported in the academic community.

Their lean is far more center than right, and their right-wing nature is more in the European liberal style (think the German FDP, not the CDU/CSU and definitely not the Republican party's views on environmentalism). Very pro-business, but not socially conservative or anti-environmentalism.