You have to judge each scare by weighing the evidence yourself. The news business model relies on scaring the snuff out of us for clicks so we are left weigh the evidence ourselves. I think people do a better job at this then we realize. Like Ebola< low concern because its not transmitted by air only with open wound contact very few cases in the US. All people infected are quarantined> Super valcanos..we have a ten percent chance for it to blow up by the end of the century. For me not too worried. But everything i read on fungus infections...this is going to be a problem. This is going to be a huge challenge for this coming decade. These links below explain>
The problem with us common folk understanding climate science is the problem seems so daunting how do we even start to tackle the problem and a road map that's easy to digest to get us to where we want to be.
I agree 100%! We know what type of problems humans in general are mentally equipped to face. An opaque, multigenerational, slow moving problem like climate change is the worst case scenario category for us. We need to translate these hard problems to smaller nearer term tangible problems we can deal with now.
You're right that the effects of our actions on the climate are not directly observable by laypeople. And that the scale of the problem is daunting.
But it is _critical_ that we fix the underlying problem in the next couple of decades. The scale of the problem means we can't fix it without help and motivation from the government, so we need to agitate now, today, for the government to put a price on carbon emissions.
There's even a bill for a carbon fee-and-divident right now. But it will never pass as long as we're all not focusing on climate change.
When it does pass, the incentives will suddenly be right for us to solve the problem.
I think the problem is marketing. Taxing carbon emissions for climate change is unpopular because people can't understand the problem it's trying to solve.
Taxing carbon emissions so they have a clear view on sunny days is a lot more understandable.
We could completely solve smog without making even a tiny dent in our carbon footprint. Why not instead try to get people to understand the real problem?
https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2010/mar/fungi-can-ch...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095543/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061021115712.h...