Arguments that reduce to labeling something as a conspiracy theory are destructive to truth seeking and an adulteration of discourse - but they are consistent with the fear of criticism that they are intened to target and leverage.
We can't launder poor arguments through complexity/uncertainty boxes like the USC grand rounds videos and say, "well, unless you understand this granular level, you can't disagree with this lateral and aggregate policy one." I wonder if on a basic level the people who argue like that aren't engaged in discovering truth, but actuated by merely avoiding criticism and seeking to align to something symbolic that protects them. This may be the crux of the disagreement.
If I have an ideological position, it is that I believe my opposing team is engaged in the neutralization of discourse because for them to prevail in their power struggles they only need for principled people to do nothing. This is perhaps the divide. There are people aligned to an ideal of truth that originates in religious cultural beliefs, and people aligned to a fear of criticism that originates in a more materialist ideology.
This scope shift from an "appeal to authority" to reframing it as a "deference to authority," in the counter argument doesn't counter my original point, which was that scientists may feel they are under seige because they have been exploited in appeals to authority, and feel blowback from some people who understood that ploy and rejected it. They are orthogonal concepts.
Sure, media defers to experts, they tell stories that include them, but the variations like "this is true because authority says so", "authority said: do this or become a hate figure," and "you are suffering because of these non-believers, just ask these authorities" were disingenuous rhetorical devices employed by media and policymakers with no objection from actual scientists.
Maybe these scientists would feel less threatened if they had less fear of criticism and more intellectual courage.