[crabmusket]

> the people disagreeing with the mainstream agenda will have no choice but to join existing opposing organizations and adopt some of their views, even if they don't fully agree with them

This confuses me a bit. For convenience, can we refer to the "mainstream" climate-change-as-religion group as M, the dissenters as D, and the opposition as O.

If we're taking the single issue of how climate change is presented, why would D go and side with O despite not fully agreeing with them, instead of M who they don't fully agree with?

Concretely, it seems to me that O are likely to not prioritise climate change in any way. Are D willing to give up climate change action for other principles? Why should D not join M and push for change, or be the faction that is more welcoming of other "heretics"?