I have a different take on this, I suspect the problem is not necessarily self-serving ad clicks and revenue. I think there's pressure within the scientific community to come up with concrete and tangible threats linked to global warming.
Otherwise all you have is stuff like "global temperatures are going to rise by n degrees over the course of the century" with n being a relatively low number for us humans used to local weather having much greater temperature swings. Sure, if we're educated we can understand why this is a huge problem, but for people who don't want to hear this (and may benefit in the short term from not hearing it) "the weather is going to be 5 degrees hotter in a century" doesn't sound all that bad.
So in order to cut through some scientists look for more dramatic events that could come as a consequence of this. The problem of course is that the climate is wild and hard to predict over large timescales and sometimes they're wrong, and then the climate change deniers use that as evidence that they're lying.
Interesting take. I would counter and say that climate over the long run is much easier to predict then in the short run. The localized effects, high variability and shorter term impacts are way more challenging.
I would say that the impact to global weather phenomenons are might not be well understood though that seems more like local (large local like continent wide) impacts as opposed to general global weather trend.
I agree with you, but that was my point, in order to get people to react it's probably more effective to identify more "local" (for a large definition of local) threats. This particular coast is going to be flooded, this particular mountain won't have snow anymore, these particular crops won't be viable anymore, this particular mode of living won't work.
But given the chaotic nature of the climate and complex feedback loops these local predictions seem to be hard to make. You can say that some catastrophic events are going to become more common, but you can't say "the 12th of November 2038 a huge storm is going to ravage this country and cause countless deaths and billions of $ in damages, so let's invest this money now to prevent it from happening".
England and Iceland are currently kept much warmer than they otherwise would be by the Gulf Stream, which brings warm waters from the around the Caribbean.
I think its a combination of both your thoughts and the OP. Using words like “collapsing” is sensationalist garbage for something that happens most years and instills fear regarding climate change. But now we have names (as in proper nouns) for every small drop of precipitation, thats purely for selling eyeballs. Also missed calls for lots of snow have been a thing forever. The exact line between inches of snow and a little rain or nothing is tough to pin down. I remember 25 years ago being off school because of a big snow that never came. Thats not a new phenomenon.
Otherwise all you have is stuff like "global temperatures are going to rise by n degrees over the course of the century" with n being a relatively low number for us humans used to local weather having much greater temperature swings. Sure, if we're educated we can understand why this is a huge problem, but for people who don't want to hear this (and may benefit in the short term from not hearing it) "the weather is going to be 5 degrees hotter in a century" doesn't sound all that bad.
So in order to cut through some scientists look for more dramatic events that could come as a consequence of this. The problem of course is that the climate is wild and hard to predict over large timescales and sometimes they're wrong, and then the climate change deniers use that as evidence that they're lying.