I am somewhat bemused by the alignment of political affiliation with opinion about global warming, an ostensibly scientific question. Obviously Republicans are much more likely to question the scientific consensus about global warming and its causes than are Democrats. Why is that? (I should think that drumming up the occasional dissenter on global warming is hardly more convincing than drumming up the occasional Duesberg on AIDS). Of course Republicans are much more likely to question the scientific consensus on evolution than are Democrats, and that is clearly because Republicans are (much) more likely to be fundamental Christians. Unlike the typical blogger (the Detailed Balancer excluded, of course) or talk radio host, respectable folks do not indulge in ad hominem arguments, so just because Republicans are more likely to believe in evolution (which, let us grant, is a benighted position) does not mean Republicans are wrong, nor Democrats right, about everything, or even about global warming. Still, why the remarkable alignment?

My guess is that Republicans have a sense that academics, including scientists, are generally Democratic and have liberal leanings. This is actually correct. There is an interesting positive correlation between education and affiliation with the Democratic party, a correlation that holds even in the sciences, so it is not because of brain-washing by the post-modern lit-crit crowd. Still, this can hardly lead one to assume that all scientific (educated, Left/East Coast pointy-heady professor elite) consensus is driven by a liberal agenda. For example, there is a scientific consensus about dietary trans fat that has led California and New York City to ban trans fats in restaurants (in both cases, the ban was spearheaded by [moderate] Republicans). This is an area I know something about, and I am highly skeptical about the consensus, don’t even get me started about the laws (I’m against them). Why aren’t the Republicans pro-trans and the Democrats anti-? On the other hand, the scientific consensus on aging research has been challenged by many crackpots, including Aubrey de Grey, and (having some expertise in this area as well) I have had no compunction in deflating these anti-establishment positions. Why don’t the Republicans rail against the liberal gerontologists?

Finally, I should say that though I am willing to provisionally accept the scientific consensus about global warming, and therefore I reject the implicit position of the Detailed Balancer (and, I gather, the Republican consensus), my personal position is: bring it on. Global warming is indeed hardly more than an inconvenient truth. Of far greater threat to civilization is the long-overdue ice age. A somewhat secondary threat, but far greater than global warming, is the depletion of fossil fuels. Both threats will be delayed by global warming (the latter because global warming will increase energy available for, .e.g., wind and hydroelectric).