Okay. Yes? The statistics I mentioned basically support your point about tribalism, which I happen to agree with.
Pointing out a prominent exception doesn't really disprove the demographics involved; if you know a person has a characteristic of one tribe you can usually confidently guess that they're substantially more likely to share other, apparently unrelated characteristics of that tribe, precisely because many people take political positions as a way to announce group identity, not because they've actually thought things through in any rational manner.
I've no particular interest in defending the scientists involved in this nonsense (even under the most charitable interpretation of events, they've embarrassed themselves and their colleagues and undermined the credibility of their field) and I don't really like or identify with any of the popular political tribes. I just thought the person I replied to was being silly for apparently denying that the political tribe he seems to belong to has certain demographic tendencies.
I'm a young urban atheist middle-class student in a graduate degree program who happens to be skeptical of the way the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is presented to the public. Pointing out that most of my peer group is not skeptical and trying to link me with rural anti-intellectual protestants are rhetorical bully tactics, not engaging the debate on its merits.
The way any science is presented to the public is rubbish, and most of the public wouldn't understand it anyway even if it was explained properly. Welcome to the way things are, I'm afraid.
And, frankly, I don't have the expertise to actually engage the debate on its merits, and neither do most people who take positions on the issue, so you'll have to forgive me if I assume most people with strong opinions on the matter have those opinions because of group identity.
But, try this: stop and look around at your real peer group, people whose opinions you respect, whose moral values you share, whose political perspectives you agree with. If you find that you and they have in common many beliefs about contentious issues of a factual nature... you might want to stop and think about why that might be the case.
Pointing out a prominent exception doesn't really disprove the demographics involved; if you know a person has a characteristic of one tribe you can usually confidently guess that they're substantially more likely to share other, apparently unrelated characteristics of that tribe, precisely because many people take political positions as a way to announce group identity, not because they've actually thought things through in any rational manner.
I've no particular interest in defending the scientists involved in this nonsense (even under the most charitable interpretation of events, they've embarrassed themselves and their colleagues and undermined the credibility of their field) and I don't really like or identify with any of the popular political tribes. I just thought the person I replied to was being silly for apparently denying that the political tribe he seems to belong to has certain demographic tendencies.