The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the
fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that
climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of
change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty
about uncertainty, which the
climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume
climate change will hit
hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.
In
fact, looking at this graph, it's
hard to say anything
about England's
climate that would be consistent with the claims that it is
changing, or becoming hostile to wildlife — it is a very variable graph.