Last week, the popular science journal Scientific American issued its first presidential endorsement in its 175-year history. Much of the editorial, which urges readers to support Joe Biden, is spent on well-founded condemnation of Donald Trump’s environmental record — which the editors rightly associate with an anti-scientific approach to politics:

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science. . . .  That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future. . . .  It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.

The sentiment reflects what has become the standard conception of climate change denial in politics. Anti-science politicians, or so the story goes, openly or implicitly reject scientific evidence in their decision-making, particularly vis-à-vis the environment. As a simple observation this certainly makes sense. Most countries, after all, still have some subset of elected lawmakers who either deny or downplay the science of climate change — and, thanks to the noxious culture of the Republican Party, this phenomenon is particularly acute in America.