I can see where you're coming from here, but quite frankly the softly-softly approach has been tried by the scientific community for the last three decades (at least) and what we have to show for it is where we are - not enough.
So people in the know are beginning to get a little bit frayed, and are beginning to frame things in terms of accountability if things go wrong as well as what can be done to stop them from getting to that stage. I'd agree that the latter framing would be nicer, but once again: where has nice got us to up until now?
Of course, the stick rather than the carrot may not produce the required action either, but I can certainly understand why people who have been pointing out a clear and obvious threat to human civilisation for a very long time are, as it is beginning to make itself felt in earnest, losing patience.
NB. The contributions of human industrial activity from the early to mid 1800's to the present day have had a massively significant effect on carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and commensurate average temperature increase.
The specific policies might well be viewed to be nonsensical.
The issue they seek to address, and more importantly the consequences of not taking it seriously, most certainly isn't.
Folks might want to parse the difference.