Okay, I'd like to respond to this, "... you should be more scared,"

Can you reason to that position? Here is how I see it, and perhaps that will make my position more clear.

I'm going to die (so are you). Every year, the probability that I'm going to die in the next year goes up bit by bit. I don't expect to read articles that continually harp on "look how close to death you are, are you sure you don't want to eat at Cracker Barrel even ONCE before you die?"

And yet, I'm not anxious about dying. I accept that I cannot live forever and I do everything that I can do to live a long and happy life but there are things that other people do that can kill me. If Russia tosses a nuke into Silicon Valley, I'm dead, if a drunk driver crosses into my lane and crushes my car, I'm dead, if a clot in my bloodstream decides to take out a critical part of my brain, I'm dead. Nothing I can do to prevent that.

Should I be more scared of dying? How about just scared enough to do everything I can do minimize my risks? I am always open to good science that informs me and helps me make good choices about risk with respect to my mortality. I exercise, I don't smoke, I wear my seatbelt, I look both ways when I cross the street, the list goes on.

Unless you haven't been paying attention, the most recent IPCC report basically says, "We're fucked, its gonna happen now no matter what." And that sucks because in an imaginary universe where there was some sort of world government that could tell everybody on the planet what to do and enforce it if they didn't then maybe it wouldn't happen. But we don't live on that planet any more than I live on a planet that can infinitely extend my life, no matter how much I wish it.

So I point out, the planet doesn't care. Big extinction event? No big deal, been there done that, look forward to seeing what the new apex predator looks like kinda not caring.

What is even sadder, is that no credible climate scientist will say "If you do this, you'll avert disaster and it will all be well." Because we AFFECT the climate but we don't know how to CONTROL the climate. That part would require us to take actions, look at the result, and then adjust to figure out what each of the levers does and what sort of pull we might have on it.

I got into a long email discussion with one of IPCC contributors who worked on the clouds aspect of the model. Because the atmosphere is warming, it holds more moisture, and that moisture becomes clouds when you hit the dew point. Clouds can form at all levels of the atmosphere but where they form changes their impact on local weather. The cloud model shows that if we get more clouds in the stratosphere it will increase surface temperatures, if they form in the troposphere the decrease surface temperatures. It was the latter that guided the "nuclear winter" hypothesis. But we haven't gotten there yet so we don't know where they are going to start showing up (and it can be different in different parts of the world). All the science tells is that there is more energy available for things like hurricane and cyclones which are powered by the difference between surface and atmospheric temperatures, and there is more water available for things like clouds and precipitation.

You can play with the current IPCC model, change where the clouds form, and get an ice age. Pretty amazing right? But it represents the limit of our understanding in how things proceed.

But that hasn't stopped any number of groups to weaponize anxiety to encourage action on their particular idea of what's "best." Some are well meaning but others, like the nuclear industry, are really trying to convince folks that you have to start massive reactor projects right now, no matter the cost, to avert calamity. Is that accurate? No. The science says the calamity is locked and loaded. Is it effective at getting more money for nuclear? Absolutely.

"Being scared" and "being anxious" isn't productive (and it reduces your life expectancy to boot!) Being proactive about the things individuals can do is good as long as all good ideas get equal treatment, rather than pushing a single agenda (whether it is nuclear, bicycles, electric cars, or high speed rail).

That is the context of my annoyance at what I see as fear mongering headlines and articles trying to steer resources to one and only one cause.