The problem is that life is complicated and nuance is impossible to sustain on a mass scale.

Since the climate seems to be the topic of choice in this situation, consider the following analogy; If you were coasting downhill in a car with no brakes, would it be better to shriek at the top of your lungs and insist everyone jump out, or would it be better to try to keep as calm as possible and try to steer the car and hope for the best?

My sense is those with the loudest voices insist the first method is best.

The reality is that our current civilization is far more dependent on fossil fuels than can be publically acknowledged. So rather than trying to demilitarize where we can, which would reduce quite a bit of pollution, work toward developing sustainable technology, rather than trying to out gadget each other, accept that money functions as a social contract enabling mass society, not a commodity to mine from it, that some of our cultural frameworks could stand a bit of review, unstead we are just going to slam on brakes that are not going to work, ignore the causes and slap bandaids over the effects.

It's not about expertise, it's about those in control catering to whoever they can, in order to push around everyone else and it will come to a bad end. They are not serious about the effects of a changing climate and how best to deal with it, only about holding onto wealth and power.