You don't have to go very far to find people against "growth" in western societies. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Oxfam etc all seem to think that growth is an evil that should be opposed.
I don't think they are duping us, but a mixture of pre-existing biases combined with enormous funding certainly helps to create the idea of a consensus.
Those groups exist, and do contain some anti-industrial proponents, but they have very little influence on policy. They get the same token gestures from the Democrats as the Republicans give the pro-lifers, only far, far less.
If there's a corruptive element to climate change policy, it's a cash grab from green energy companies. After 2000, the Democrats know that the green voters won't dare vote third party again (sadly), so don't care about appeasing them beyond gestures.
>Before we tackle that, we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from now.
400 years ago humans didn't have usable heat engines, mobile chronometers, thermometers, and numerous other technologies essential to living a life differentiated from that of the Neanderthals. It isn't for certain that we'll make similar progress in the coming 400 years, but it's plausible. I don't think it will take that long to construct a Dyson swarm, for instance. The physicist you link really begs the question when he forbids "space cadets".
It's also questionable to equate growth in economic well-being with growth in energy use. They have certainly been related for a long time, but advances in materials, miniaturization, automation, and other engineering will make the environmentalists' goal of stabilizing per-capita energy use feasible.
I don't think they are duping us, but a mixture of pre-existing biases combined with enormous funding certainly helps to create the idea of a consensus.