Is acceptance of the science of global warming by politicians primarily a result of the bandwagon effect? While denial of global warming is without a doubt from bandwagon appeal furthered by campaign donations, I get the impression that the acceptance of global warming by politicians is also primarily a result of the bandwagon effect. The bandwagon fallacy being


  [An argumentum ad populum] that concludes that a proposition is true
  because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is
  so."


The main reason I think so is because it is not a major issue for most of them. I get the impression that if they knew how serious it is, then it would be a major issue for them, and they would have made more efforts to combat it.
First off, political agendas in Western democratic countries are, of course, shaped by the masses. 

Secondly, global warming is becoming a science in its own right. Climatology is important and is based on models based on historical data to predict the future, taking into account current greenhouse gas concentrations, melting of the polar caps, sea levels, population growth and what not. In other words, it is far too complicated a subject to be completely understood by the regular ground folks. 

Thus, indeed, [intelligent, capable] politicians rely on scientists to do the thinking for them. In turn, politician's agendas are shaped by the populace so their focus is, and should be guided by the masses.

This should, however, not be a reason to adhere to hypotheses and theories to be correct or incorrect based on the people's opinion. And hence I do not agree that politician's opinions in general are shaped according to the bandwagon appeal.