A commenter ("Joshua") at Climate Etc observes:
How anyone can not see the tribal character of the combatants on both sides of this debate is astounding to me.
Ensuing responses in the thread indicate that Climate Etc denizens don't see this, so "Joshua" elaborated:
My point is that a baseline assumption for everyone involved should be that their reasoning (risk analysis being one part of that reasoning) is affected by certain predispositions. It is incumbent on anyone who is interested in resolving the debate to accept that reality and work from there to control for their own subjectivity as best they can. It is possible, at least to some degree, get above the subjective bickering, and I applaud Judy's interest in doing so. But it is inherently illogical to see the underlying psychology of tribalism as being disproportionately manifest in participants on one side of the debate. If you have that as your starting point, you undermine your own credibility.