There are intuitive one-minute explanations for why climate change is real and important. However, I think that due to the complex nature of the topic a full answer requires deep study.
Thus, I think it is reasonable to rely on the decades of evidence and science that have led to a concensus among the people that spend their entire lifes studying the topic.
That's the thing, I could use the same argument to believe in "god" by saying that priest spend their entire lives studying the matter so I should believe them when they say it exists. Yet I'm an atheist. You see where I'm getting at right?
My entire take on this is that we should really do something about it. Specially since, in the chance they're actually right we'd be both saving the world and improving people's health. Going around in a city with smog is very bad for your lungs.
Edit: Though screwing over the mental health of an entire generation over it might defeat the purpose of "saving the world" or "saving humanity".
The difference is called "empiricism". God is defined as something supernatural and unexplainable. Science is the opposite. Why do you think this is a good comparison?
It's funny you mention this and the "god" example, and yet you are an atheist. Can't you make the same argument about the existence of God? It might be unlikely that a God exists, but just in case He does, it is infinitely better to be religious. Because you'd end up in hell otherwise.
(This is not my original idea, it was brought up the first time by Blaise Pascal)
The science behind climate change is simple and more than 90% of the worlds experts in geology, ecology, climatology, oceanography, chemistry, physics, etc all are in agreement that global warming is real and caused by humans. Here's a FAQ from the times if you'd like a reference https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin...
I don't take issue with that position, although I disagree. I'd say it is worth it.
However, we should consider that the effect of climate change on "the mental health of an entire genration" is perhaps not greater than the effect of e.g., WWI, WWII, or the Cold War. Imagine living under the constant threat of nuclear war.
But let me ask you this. Can you think of a single thing you can't discard with this logic? One single thing.
Priests "studying" a fixed text is not at all similar to scientists collecting empirical data, creating falsifiable hypotheses, running predictive simulations built on models derived from that empirical study.
By the way, much of our previous research on climate science has already been falsified, for them to be substituted for theories which show even stronger evidence for man-made climate change.