For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

But there's a deeper problem with the point you're trying to make here. You claim the reports didn't reflect the scientific consensus. Really? Go read those reports. They do claim they were reporting the consensus. To the extent they admitted the existence of uncertainty it was uncertainty of the form, we don't know why temperatures are falling, we don't know how bad it'll get but it'll probably be bad, etc.

So how do you know that reports back then were lying about the existence of a consensus, but today's reports aren't? Who gets to declare a "general scientific consensus" anyway? Can we meet these people and ask how they determined that? What about virology, where they claim there's an absolute consensus that SARS-CoV-2 couldn't have escaped from a lab even though it's obvious it could?

Here's some quotes from articles published in the 60s and 70s [1]

New York Times, 1961: "Scientists agree world is colder. After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder"

Washington Post, 1970: "Get a good grip on your long johns cold weather haters, the worst may be yet to come. That's the long long range forecast being given out by climatologists".

New York Times, July 1970: "The US and the Soviet Union are mounting large scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid." (this one also discusses geo-engineering with the goal of melting the poles)

Letter to the US President, 1972: "we feel obliged to inform you of the results of the recent scientific conference held here recently ... a global deterioration of climate by an order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has a natural cause"

The Post-Crescent, 1973: "'Clearly we are living in an unusual time and cannot, based on past evidence, expect the present warm age to last much longer' [said] Imbrie, [who] is a part of CLIMPA, a new three institution climate research team (Brown, Columbia and Oregon State Universities) engaged in a global study of climactic change under the sponsorship of NSF-IDOE".

etc. There are more examples at the link.

https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/

In the 80s in the UK acid rain was hyped up, in the 90s it was 20 years of oil reserves in the education system. Both now have generated adults distrusting education because they're not an academic and they just remember what a fool told them at face value without nuance.

One of the biggest recently being reports that we will have millions dead unless X which doesn't match reality which is just going to create more anti intellectual fear

I believe it is. The rate at which iso-climate lines are moving north is faster than a lot of species can move. Most fauna could be ok by that criteria alone, but most flora can't move so rapidly (a lot of tree species can only move 10m/10years).

And when the flora goes, a lot fauna does too.

Sure, the human species will survive. It certainly did with a few million of individuals for most of the time. But I believe we're already in the 6th mass extinction event, perhaps the biggest so far.

We're going to get a lesson from nature. The only question is how tough will it be. I believe large famines, wars, and a partial civilization collapse are coming.

It is really funny how the "but they told us its cooling" thing is actually only widely known and talked in the English speaking parts of the world (mainly the US). Everywhere else in the world nobody even knows about this argument. There might be a reason for that.

Also love you linking to a Newsweek article instead of some relevant papers that detail this cooling trend and how it was predicted. I mean its not a meme at all how popular Media misunderstands science and only reports on the most surprising aspects to get people to buy their publications.

Meanwhile, other countries are going to be left to die or left to generalized social unrest, drought and hunger. Massive migrations with a massive security apparatus. I'm guessing human population will fall below two billion or less before 2080 or before, until we can build a green industry while protecting people from this new climate.

I don't think it will be a "collapse" like it's often talked about by the collapse movement, but it will be a slow disaster, which will be much more "tolerable" and avoid dangerous, unstable crises or large conflicts. Intelligence agencies are going to carefully plan all of this.

Hawks are going to say "it won't be so bad" and that "only the fittest shall survive". It won't be very civilized, but individualism will go away and be replaced by communities who focus on survival at the expense of outgroups. It will probably look like dystopian movies, minus the glory, the heroes and the adventure.