OP was voted down by others but I respect their honesty about it. And the point about their perception of fear being used as a motivator and resulting skepticism. I think a lot of people feel this way.
I think people are "crisis hardened" at this point. So much news and opinion about most everything is framed as a "crisis" and people are just sort of tuned out to it and they're sick of being made anxious about everything. It feels a whole lot better to have someone else say "don't listen, they're just trying to scare you to get power" and people will tune into that eventually.
I think people see hypocrisy all over the place as well, especially in the climate issue and people hate being preached to. People hate hearing that they shouldn't have meat, they shouldn't have a car, they shouldn't fly, etc. They fear the currently proposed solutions like taxing these heavily or rationing it. Simply put, people at large will not get behind a massive project like this politically until it is sold as something that makes their lives better. That they don't have to give these things up but that we should work towards doing them better.
It's especially difficult with this issue too since it's been sold poorly (global warning, then why is it freezing today?!) and it's a very slow process when considering a human's life. Yes, the data we have and the models we have are compelling. However, denial is a powerful thing especially when people are told to listen to an authority that wants to take their pleasures away.
I just don't think going around calling other people idiots or asking why they didn't just listen to scientists (science and especially scientists are not infallible.) is very useful. To get a super majority behind this we need to sell it as a project to not take away anything but to find new ways of doing it without putting excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. That you can have a steak, and a car, and un your AC, and travel but that we also need to agree to finance projects in making these things sustainable. That engineering ourselves a better future is possible and that stopping doing things doesn't have to be the way.
I don't know, I just think psychology of how it is being sold is ineffective. Unlivable conditions, death, the Earth's destruction should motivate people but the threat just isn't imminent enough for people to sacrifice. I think it does the opposite and sends people looking for a safe place where it's going to be OK and anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to pick your pocket. Our style of government is not great at unifying around big projects and unless the threat is clearly imminent and/or in progress. We need persuasion to win and positive visions for the future to get there.