Applying Conspiracy vs narrative to the climate change debate

It’s generally a bad idea to reject established wisdom on the grounds of conspiracy theory, but it is a good idea to evaluate conventional wisdom by challenging narratives. So, for instance, there are “climate deniers” who claim that climate change is a hoax—a pretext to grab control by a conspiracy of scientists and public officials. I consider this position illegitimate on the grounds that it would require an impossible combination of secrecy among thousands of people. But it is legitimate to challenge the narrative of climate alarmism since it requires no conspiracy, just groupthink (an extremely common psychological tendency). It’s reasonable to read the evidence (as Obama’s energy Czar, Steven Koonin does), to come to the conclusion that although climate change is real, it doesn’t appear to be a threat on the level that many in positions of power would have it be. We shouldn’t dismiss facts (by invoking “conspiracy”) to dismiss climate alarmism, but we should challenge dominant, elite narratives in light of the facts. As far as I can tell, rejecting consensus can be done using conspiracy theory or narrative theory, but the former is generally misguided while the latter is important and necessary since bad narratives that distort or deny facts can take hold for social reasons.