Maybe because there's a scientific consensus at least on the fact that there's a global warming at the source of a ever growing climate instability and that the only people pushing against it are crazy people who don't know what they are talking about and crazy politicians willing to say that out loud in order to get elected, and coal/oil/gas lobbies paying for sham science (and aforementioned politicians) to say the contrary.
Funny by the way how the discourse about climate change has changed over the years from "It's not happening" to "It's not that bad". Altough in typical conspiracist style, some have always held both at the same time.
Is Freeman Dyson also a crazy person who doesn't know what he's talking about?
The appearance of consensus is manufactured by the media. They label each dissenter as an individual crazy person and somehow the mainstream narrative is the consensus.
And again, this labelling is done by the media. There's no high authority of science.
Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist.
How can you expect me to take it seriously when I read that:
"""
Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
"""
The consensus being withheld by the all the media that speak the voice of the elite is that you should go to work and not interfere with the money making machine. Realizing that climate change is an issue for humanity and doing something about it does interfere with the money making machine and only with threats of impending doom, does the machine slowly allow to modify its ways. But profit remains the sacred law.
I don't watch "the media" and I do my own labelling. I have read and seen enough conspiracist bs to tell the difference by myself.
