Taken as a whole, scientists are fairly open to new evidence, but conservative about making non-orthodox claims about that evidence. Climate research is harder because it's a slow-moving phenomenon. 'People all over' are not in a position to understand that.

'People' also tend to be slow at recognizing how much different their lives are from those a century ago - because of science discoveries. Taking away all those advantages for a while would put a quick stop to most of their negativity. So what they think is not terribly significant.

The problem is not epistemological conservatism in general. The problem is that in this case climate uniformity is (rather arbitrarily) assigned as the null hypothesis, which leads to systematic underestimation. This is conveniently (and, we are to believe, coincidentally) in line with political and business pressures facing science faculty, namely accusations of 'alarmism.'

As for fantasizing about punishing people for observing bias in science (again using Feynman's own test) by taking away their iPads and vaccines, that's not even worth responding to, let alone an argument.