>It is almost as if the public discourse is dominated by loud simple minded people who sort themselves into tribes along arbitrary/self-serving lines and fiercely double down in the face of evidence.
This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is those "simple minded voices" are likely being paid by the oil companies to spread the pro recycling and anti nuclear positions.
This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is that there is a sort-of "public consensus" and people are really trying to forbid anyone from (significantly) deviate from it.
And like any sort of large-scale consensus, it's dumb ("simple" if you like). Why? Because any sufficiently large group must accommodate below-average humans, and, well, those are below average. So such any large scale consensus cannot be very complicated, and cannot advocate for complex solutions.
For example, I prefer using something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos to use very minimal resources to take control of weather, and the climate, and letting go of emission limits (at least for CO2). It doesn't require everyone to cooperate and will be a heck of a lot cheaper. This in turn protects a lot of mostly poorer people who don't really have that much to do with the problem, while remaining a realistic option. (or more bluntly: it's a realistic option that doesn't ask the poor to live in the cold)
This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is those "simple minded voices" are likely being paid by the oil companies to spread the pro recycling and anti nuclear positions.