[zerebubuth]

I think it depends on context. As you point out, a lot of coverage is given to climate change denialists - out of proportion to the number of scientists who are sceptical of the consensus. Other examples of that include vaccine safety, evolution, GMO safety and cancer therapy.

However, in other contexts it seems like the prevailing consensus is reported without any controversy. For example; many popular psychology books have been written and findings reported as truth, which is now being thrown into question by the recent reproducibility crisis in that field. I've not seen any coverage of "big bang denialists" or "inflation denialists", despite how esoteric some of these theories are.

I'm tempted to see a link between those issues which negatively affect people's lives and the rise in belief in alternatives which are less negative (but potentially falsifiable). However, this is by no means a thorough review of the issues, and perhaps reflects my bias in recalling examples.

[0xfeba]

> I'm tempted to see a link between those issues which negatively affect people's lives and the rise in belief in alternatives which are less negative (but potentially falsifiable).

I recall reading about an effect who's name I forget, but it goes something like this:

The larger and more distant a phenomenon is from the day-to-day of an individual, the less likely that individual is to accept it.