A year or so ago, the very idea that the most powerful person on the planet could, within just a couple of years, be someone who refuses to accept the science that underpins our knowledge of anthropogenic climate change was almost laughable.

Sarah Palin – who is no stranger to climate scepticism - has long been on people's lips as a future candidate for the US presidency. But most analysts thought that Barack Obama would likely see off any challenge from any Republican who flirted with the extremes of the Tea Party movement and its anti-science agenda. And that was before Obama received a political fillip after green-lighting the assassination of Osama bin Laden in May.

But everything has changed now. The US economy continues to wade through treacle and, as a result, there seems to be growing talk that Obama is destined to be a one-term president. And currently leading the polls as his most likely Republican successor is Rick Perry, the governor of Texas.

Last night, during the first of three televised debates between the current nominees for the Republican presidential candidacy (Palin continues to play her strategic game of "let 'em brew"), we got to see in high definition what it might be like to have a full-blown climate sceptic as US president. Here's the exchange between the moderator, John Harris, editor in chief of Politico, and Rick Perry on the issue of climate change:

Harris: Just recently in New Hampshire, you said that, weekly and even daily, scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change. Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject? Perry: Well, I do agree that there is - the science is - is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at – at- at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just - is nonsense. I mean, it - I mean - and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell. But the fact is, to put America's economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy.

It's one thing to question the economic impact and legacy of current climate policy proposals – you would expect and wish for politicians to debate this – but for a politician to question the science in this way is striking. (It's worth recalling that in 2009 Perry also hit out at the "radical green energy crowd" when assuming the chair of Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.) Note how he studiously ignored the moderator's well-crafted question: who exactly are these "Galileos" that you believe have so comprehensively cast doubt on the canon of climate science? Perry couldn't – or wouldn't – name them.

Following the debate, Ray Sullivan, Perry's campaign communications director, told ABC News to expect Perry to continue pushing his climate scepticism. In other words, it's a pre-meditated campaign strategy to win over voters:

I think the governor answered consistent with his philosophy, consistent with what frankly a lot of Americans and a lot of Republicans believe — that the climate it changing. We're not sure that it's manmade. In fact, there's a lot of questions about whether it's manmade. And we shouldn't jeopardise the jobs and the economy and the future of this country on science that's not proven. That's what the governor has said, said tonight and will continue to say going forward.

With canny timing, some fascinating polling was published yesterday by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Contained within a report called "Politics & Global Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party" are the survey results of 1,010 adults questioned from April-May this year about their views on climate change. Here are the headline findings:

* Majorities of Democrats (78%), Independents (71%) and Republicans (53%) believe that global warming is happening. By contrast, only 34% of Tea Party members believe global warming is happening, while 53% say it is not happening.

* While 62% of Democrats say that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, most Tea Party members say it is either naturally caused (50%) or isn't happening at all (21%).

* Democrats are more likely to agree that the record heat waves of the summer of 2010 (not 2011) strengthened their belief that global warming is occurring, while Republicans and Tea Party members are more likely to disagree.

* By contrast, Tea Party members are more likely to agree that the record snowstorms of the winter of 2010-2011 in the US caused them to question whether global warming is occurring.

* A majority of Democrats (55%) say that most scientists think global warming is happening, while majorities of Republicans (56%) and Tea Party members (69%) say that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.

* A large majority of Democrats (72%) worry about global warming, compared to 53% of Independents, 38% of Republicans, and 24% of Tea Party members. Over half (51%) of Tea Party members say they are not at all worried about global warming.

* Nearly half of Democrats (45%) say that global warming is already harming people in the US, while 33% of Republicans and 51% of Tea Party members say it will never harm people in the US.

* Tea Party members are much more likely to say that they are "very well informed" about global warming than the other groups. Likewise, they are also much more likely to say they "do not need any more information" about global warming to make up their mind.

After Obama's victory in late 2008, many around the world let out a collective sigh of relief that the era of climate intransigence and indifference under George W Bush was finally over. Sadly, it now appears that Obama's brief window for action is over and he is unlikely to ever regain the political capital he needs to implement any serious climate policies. But, most alarming of all, the whole world – not just the US – needs to start seriously preparing for the very real possibility that a staunch climate sceptic could, within 16 months, have his cowboy boots under the desk in the Oval Office.