Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful. I think what you're really dealing with is cognitive disso

Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful. I think what you're really dealing with is cognitive dissonance: Accepting what the science says on climate probably means accepting that you yourself could be be contributing to a situation that could be a serious problem for your children and grandchildren. It probably also implies making some lifestyle modifications that may feel severe, such as cutting way back on high-carbon activities like driving and meat consumption. In a situation like that, which option is less daunting: Accepting the consensus opinion of climate scientists and all the worry that implies, or going with the denialists so that you can get back to business as usual?