Humans are lazy and bad at preventing long-term problems. We need to be reminded frequently, otherwise we get complacent and take naps instead of saving our species.
This isn't an indictment of science or scientists, but of science reporting. If the story is climate-change related then it's reported. If it's not, then they find some climate change related angle. If they can't then the story is usually dropped.
Should science journalist hold themselves to a better, special standard? True. Especially with the age old war that's waged on it by those who hold power through selling incredibly unscientific world views. But I think the overt actions these forces are more to blame than poor science journalism. People don't like inconvenient facts, people will forever be victims to a voice making a problem go away by denying the problem even exists.
My guess is that the underlying issue is funding.
I also think there are often communication failures from many scientists - for example failing to distinguish between personal opinion, consensus opinion, and well proven things.
On top of that, of course, individual scientists are still fallible and biased like any human being, especially about things they feel strongly about.
A good journalist would speak to multiple people in the field with different opinions, ask them questions like how well proven a theory actually is, etc. Pity they are not more common!