Science Versus 'Goodies and Baddies'?

Amy Westervelt (Climate journalist and Founder/Executive Producer of the Critical Frequency podcast network) has an opinion piece on how to 'sell' action on climate change to the general public (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/28/follow-the-science-public-climate-crisis). Westerberg argues that telling people 'to follow the science' (a la Greta Thunberg?) won't save the planet. She points out that, in the US, currently the second largest polluter, 'only' 40% of the population are college graduates. This implies that society is too uneducated to understand the science. Westerberg opines, however, that people can be activated to fight for 'justice'. This requires, in her view, the clear labelling of 'villains'. In the case of climate change, these would be the major petrochemical and mining companies, along with their facilitators (some politicians and banks). 'Heroes', in this scenario, would be the climate activists. Westerberg provides a graphic example of a member of a Californian crab-fishing family, whose catches were progressively reduced by warming waters. That woman had assumed that climate change was something that just happened. She was, however, infuriated when shown evidence that, in the 1970s and 1980s, the major oil companies had all taken out patents for oil drilling platforms, designed to exploit fields in a melting Arctic. This was at a time when the same companies were using their wealth to distort science and tell people there was nothing to worry about. Westerberg may have a point about the relative effectiveness of whipping up the resentment of the exploited against their exploiters. I have, however, some reservations (I would do wouldn't I, as an ancient scientist?). My first reservation is that 'to follow the science' one doesn't have to be a climate science specialist. Science becomes more 'believable' when a) there is a clear consensus among the specialists; b) the key data is generated by individuals operating in 'respectable' institutions; c) the papers have been subject to peer review by reputable journals and d) the generators of the data are not financially beholden to commercial interests who would benefit. Science is never exact, which is one of the things that creates problems for 'followers'. It is also appreciated that none of the above four criteria gives an absolute guarantee of verity. My second reservation is that, in our social media-dominated world, the labelling of 'goodies' versus 'baddies' has been used with malign intent. For example, part of the Covid 'antivaxx' mantra is that 'Big Pharma' are the 'baddies'. Antivaxxers argue that they are making untold millions with their vaccines (true). Antivaxxers are self-appointed 'heroes', with their suggestions that Covid19 is a feeble disease that should be treated with cheap alternatives (like bleach and ivermectin). They are also protecting our 'freedoms' (untrue). I would prefer not to give up on science just yet. I still hope that the general public can and will increase their scientific understanding!