Close. I'm not saying you're wrong but I am proposing a fork from your post in that the really important question isn't "would you rather believe we're on an i

Close. I'm not saying you're wrong but I am proposing a fork from your post in that the really important question isn't "would you rather believe we're on an inevitable path to doom, or that everyone is lying to you?"\ But for the people in charge its more like: "would you gain more authoritarian political power by promoting that we're on an inevitable path to doom, or that everyone is lying to you?" Now lets add another wrinkle... lets say by the magic of groupthink 99% of one population is already a devout member of one belief system. If 50% of climate scientists (small group though they are) were dyed in the wool Republicans then coming out against them would cost votes prestige and power. But if they already are indoctrinated to hate you and your race and your religion and your group, you don't lose very much in a practical sense by signalling against them. In fact as a member of the opposition you probably should oppose them on general principles and your own group expects you to live up to your ... devoutness. I've seen it, watching people nearby me convert to denialism. I have to admit I agree with them on a lot of smaller details. A fascination with symbolic level commitments that are a rounding error WRT altering the Earth's long term problems but ruin innumerably human lives in the short term. "This symbolic proposal will help absolutely nothing in the long term, but in the short term it'll sure destroy a lot of jobs, jobs for people that our political group are trained to bitterly hate..."