Group think in the climate debate

I am what is called a climate skeptic - I recognize that climate is changing and warming, but I am aware of the uncertainly in any modelling effort and I doubt the severity of the long term effect upon human survival. My professional career was in the environmental field for the Federal government and models were used constantly to predict potential future impacts - and they were universally wrong. Just as wrong as predicting that the human species is DOOMED if we don't institute radical corrective action on climate change. Even accepting the more extreme projections of climate change by 2100, nothing I've seem threatened human survival. Change, certainly. Sever effects on some population, you bet. An apocalypse, hardly. Related to this is this interesting article by Ben Newell, a Professor of Cognitive Psychology from Australia (https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/09/19/is_groupthink_a_valid_argument_against_climate_science_111110.html). His argument is that group think is not a factor in the scientific community relative to climate change. I think his argument is naive. He basically depends upon the scientific method of conflict to approach the truth. To some extent, I can agree that within the "purely" scientific community, that should be the case. However, rarely is the scientific community "pure". Additionally, in the public arena, I think group think is dominate, as evidenced by things like major news sources (i.e., CNN) not allowing any consideration of climate skeptics in presentation on climate change. Professor Newell presents, for group think to be likely, several "several tell-tale signs: stereotyped views of rivals and enemies; self-censorship of doubts or counterarguments to create an illusion of unanimity; and direct pressure on any members that express strong arguments against any of the group stereotypes." I think these are obviously present in the public discussions on climate change, where skeptics are called "deniers", where presentations of questions concerning the sever nature of climate change are disallowed (see the content of "Covering Climate Now", for example (https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now/covering-climate-now-170-outlets.php) which basically will not consider any position other than it's a crisis and disaster, and where pressure on scientific skeptics are subject pressure to conform (see, for example, Dr.Judith A. Curry's experience). While "group think" may not be dominate in the purely scientific arena (thought I do have my doubts, given that scientists are human), it dominates the public discussions of climate change.