I think Elon Musk is a great example of someone who has recently called out climate science as being hyperbolic.
So whats the deal here? Obviously alarmism is turning people off, but what is the actual data?
Over the past two decades, the dialog has shifted a bit along lines like "the Earth isn't getting warmer, and if it is then it's not humans that are responsible and if they are then we can't do anything about it anyway" which feels to me like the "truth" being projected is whatever doesn't require any action. Human nature being what it is, it's debatable whether any effort aimed at changing people's behavior could ever be successful, and trying to make them feel bad about it may even be counterproductive.
On the whole (and echoing another comment), you're not likely to get reliable information about climate change from any generalist source of information. Every time there's a slightly unusual weather event, there are a brigade of voices trying to tie it to climate change. Actual researchers understand that you simply can't ascribe individual events in that fashion; the best you can do is to look at trends and try honestly to look at all possible factors for them. Forest fires are in the US seem to be getting worse, and it's probable that some amount of that is a direct or indirect result of climate change. But there have also been a lot of changes in forestry management over the last century, and an increase in the number of people living in affected areas -- and both of these clearly have some role in our perception too.
Yes, there is dissonance. Because people spread misinformation, or lies, however you want to label it. The fact is that climate change is quite real and quite a problem. The dissonance stems from the lies, not the facts.
Just search for the facts. First result I got was from NASA: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
My best (semi-informed) summary: Is it happening? Yes. Is it hyperbolic? That's a matter of opinion. Some regions are affected more than others. Increased occurrences and severities of storms and wildfires are partially (but not solely) caused by climate change, but if you're out of those affected areas, they're easier to ignore. Is it going to drive us to extinction by next year? No. Is it affecting people and environments gradually? Yes. Is it measurable? Yes. Some places get hotter, some places get colder, some places get drier or wetter or more or less suitable for crops and animals and humans, etc. You can look up studies for your specific region of the world if you want.
But it's not really the science of "is it happening" that's under dispute (anymore), but questions of "how much", "how quick", "where", and most importantly, "what to do about it". It is the last question especially that's hard to answer.
Different pundits, billionaires, politicians, etc. all have their own take on it. The scientists don't have much power or voice, so you're left with secondhand and thirdhand accounts and screaming matches and propaganda and misinformation. Climate policies affect a lot of industries, from energy (obviously) to automotive to data centers to oil & gas to defense to finance to agriculture, and also have huge global geopolitical and economical ramifications.
It ultimately boils down to trying to reduce the output of certain sectors (fossil fuels and heavy industries and ranching and meat) in favor of others (renewables, service economies, certain types of agriculture, etc.). Generally it's not the same demographics (in terms of values or regions or politicians or countries) who are affected by those shifts, so there is a huge class & demographic component to it too, i.e. coastal tech workers with company-subsidized solar panels and EVs have more to gain and less to lose than middle America ranchers who depend on traditional industries and infrastructure for their livelihoods and communities.
Add to that already-complex divide things like carbon markets (one company pollutes more, but can buy "pollution credits" from some other tree-planting or solar farm project to offset that), financial incentives (it's a huge market right now), religion, culture, etc. and you get this huge issue with no easy solutions. It's a global problem that gradually affects everyone, but in the short term, it affects some people & communities much more than others, and there are various profit and power motives embedded within the gradual shifts too that further muddy the waters.
Don't worry though... with the rightward shifts we're seeing across the U.S. and the world, there's probably not going to be much more discussion of this in the next few decades. I think by this point it's a lost cause anyway. But on the other hand, renewables still chug along, with China's massively subsidized solar industry causing many countries around the world to add more and more renewable energy (at least until U.S. tariffs kick back in). Nuclear is kinda seeing a resurgence too. It's funny / sad how, despite decades of advocacy and argument, in the end the only thing that really made a dent was the very thing that caused it... heavy industries. If not for China making a ton of solar panels while we argued ourselves to death, and AI helping to drive nuclear reinvestment, it'd be even worse today.
As for Elon, well, he's sort of a mixed bag on the topic, isn't he? He wasn't always right-leaning (at least not publicly), and he's not exactly your stoic analytical type. But his companies also single-handedly brought EVs back into the mainstream and made rooftop solar (somewhat) sexier. He's not a scientist, but if he wanted it, he can easily get all the data and analysis he wants. It's just a matter of what he chooses to do with it, and the stories he wants to tell with it, colored by his own needs and desires. On one hand, Tesla will benefit from more electrification (which is a common part of climate policy). On the other hand, if he wants to further ingratiate himself with the new administration and conservatives, he can't really play up the climate angle.
There's some low-hanging fruit, "might as well" kind of stuff that might survive the political shifts. Better access to electricity, better EV charging networks, etc. will benefit more and more people across the country, cuz why not, especially if solar keeps getting cheaper. But things like emissions reduction agreements will probably be left up to individual states and companies, or banned federally as much as possible, so international climate agreements are probably dead now (not that they ever did much). The climate has always been a distant concern compared to the economy, and now it's likely to be forgotten altogether by the powers that be.
But those are political questions, not scientific ones. The actual data on it is pretty straightforward, but that's not what drives policy or most politicians.