True - but most people never become scientists - not even amateurs - but there exists a flourishing industry of science books for people who are a bit science curious. Scott Alexander used to be a giant Hancock fan - anecdotal I know but he later realized it was sort of bullshit - but still was interested in deep archaeology. I'll call that a win.

On the stats - that's a rabbit hole I won't go down today but every time I've seen people talk about alternatives to the system the left and right become like a long married couple ending each other's sentences.

>And the fact that there are long term economic advantages for things like solar, etc. that don't take into account at all whether or not you believe in man made climate change.

Sure.

> But I think this is also a false premise - that somehow conspiracy theory nuts have the same impact on public perception of science as one of the most public scientific issues with consensus from tens of thousands of scientists including basically 100% of the leading experts in the field.

There I think you're making a mistake. Literary people think Proust is awesome. A lot of people have read Dan Brown. Who is having more impact? You're making a face now - I can see through the interneticals.