> just practicing bothsideism here. I disagree. I was noting a more complex reality where scientists who agree with climate science might also choose to ident

> just practicing bothsideism here. I disagree. I was noting a more complex reality where scientists who agree with climate science might also choose to identify as Republican given the totality of the platform. In fact, I have known some. To rephrase my earlier statement: There exists at least one proper (accepted by the scientific community as opposed to self proclaimed) scientist who identifies as Republican. I said that in counter to a universal statement. The reason is that the existence of one counter example leads to a contradiction with the generalization. As such the universal is false. It doesn't declare a statement on the relative frequency of scientists in either party. I choose to stay out of that conversation because I find people struggle to be rational in these discussions about politics.