Reading this comment thread has been disappointing for me, an avid believer in hbd and agw both. I agree with the poster that the parallels are interesting -- "scientific 'consensus' versus politically incorrect minority view". 
 
It's also interesting that, if I'm reading them right, most of the comments above don't question the science and the reality of AGW, but rather the mainstream view of what should be done about it. 
 
Razib, can we have a poll?

Has McCain ever gone on record about this book? I'd be very surprised if he's ever come out in support of it.  
 
Also, criticisms like linda's just aren't fair. I'm not going to say she's not right -- I hate ad-hominem attacks as much as the next guy. But Obama is a politician, after all. You can't (or shouldn't, anyway) expect politicians, no matter what party, to argue scientific points like this on their merits. All politicians, when faced with something with which they disagree strongly, will claim hidden agendas.

Assume that people emigrate because they find it hard to progress in a mature society where there is lots of competition, with the niches all full. The "Scots-Irish" of the south had emigrated twice - once from Scotland and the English borders to Ireland, and then from Ireland to the US. So they had twice been filtered to leave behind the people who could cope with high levels of competition. Whereas the Puritans of the north had been filtered only once.

What do others think of Vaillant? I just read the reviews of "Spiritual Evolution" on Amazon, and am skeptical -- he sounds like too much of a religious apologist, just going by the reviews.