They happend every 10,000-15,000 years or so right (on avg)? I think I remember hearing that before.
Also we've gone more than 11,000? years without such a eruption so we are due for one soon probably.

Yellowstone last 3 supervolcano eruptions were  2.1m, 1.2m, 640k years ago.
So between 600-900k years between its eruptions. 
Its been 640k+ years since its last eruption.  It could happend tomorrow or like 250,000 years from now.

However we've been lucky to avoid such a event in modern history.
Like think back like 10,000 years ago.
Barely any humans on the planet, america was basically empty, if yellowstone blew, it wouldnt do that much damage.
However if today a massive eruption happends in yellowstone, the cost of human life in the US would be massive.

Yeah, that's what I mean. Convincing people to stop cutting down trees and start planting them instead just isn't going to happen on a wide enough scale to be successful.

So why not come up with another solution that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere instead. Another issue is the depletion of the ozone layer, with certain gases/chemicals interacting with the O3 and altering it (I believe to O2 + H2O?). So is there not something similar that could be used to break up CO2? I know CO2 is a more stable compound than O3 and thus less likely to interact with other gasses/chemicals, but it's not outside the realms of possibility, right?

I don't disagree with your underlying point.  Clearly, the earth can heal itself.   The impact that humans have on the long term health of the earth is less clear, but certainly it is something.  Those facts aren't at issue here.

The issue is that we have been told repeatedly that we'll be fucked by year X if Y doesn't happen.  Y never happens, and year X always comes and goes, and we're never fucked.  So, "climate scientists" (a commonly used term that we could spend a whole thread discussing) as a group lack credibility. 

They're wrong every time.  They cry wolf, but no wolves ever show up.  So, fewer and fewer people pay attention to each successive cry.  Frankly, to the extent that "climate science" is an important field (and I believe it is pretty important), they owe it to humanity to stop constantly making wildly inaccurate claims. Only then will we be able to actually hear them if there truly is something that needs prompt attention.

Earth will be fine. It always will be fine. It's the people who are fucked. No matter what we do to the planet. It will heal itself. We might all die but the planet will not. This planet has a few billion more years. We don't.

Bad news sell better, so the more dramatic predictive models will receive more attention by the media. That's why I think that putting the blame entirely on scientists isn't right, because not all of their models have been off by miles. The news media don't care about accuracy, hence why something fundamentally idiotic like the Year 2000 Crash was something they ran with; that wasn't climate-related, but the very idea that our world will stop working because lots of devices operated on double digits (00-99) to determine the year... that never made sense, but this particular story was still prominent in 1999.

But your main point rings true. Climate scientists owe it to humanity to keep it real, so no scientist should run with a single predictive model, but have several of them with varying variables to account for different scenarios.

Half the world was on fire for the last couple years and y'all out here like "Climate scientist have been predicting problems for years now and we've seen nothing!".

That just doesn't exist and is more unlikely than trees to happen. If a simple solution like planting more trees doesn't happen, finding a new way and spending all that money on research and development and implementation will not happen at all either.

Well said

Scientists study this stuff for a lifetime but the laymen think they know better, we make people highly educated experts but we will not listen to them  

The scientific community has never had a consensus of an uncontrollable climate taking off in a "few years" (decades maybe) unlit recently saying our time is soon approaching before we lose control of it  

But they have warned of us for decades not of impending doom in a few years but a gradual deterioration over decades, and we are seeing it happen, you have to have your head in the sand to miss it

Keep in mind science never stays still, it improves with better data, better instruments, and better collaboration, it's now that we have more data and better models than we had 10, 20, 30 years ago https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Now Scientists see this is accelerating and it will get worse in a shorter time than previously thought if we don't effectively act  

Once the climate passes a certain tipping point even stopping all pollution/carbon in a single day will have no affect, we lose control of the situation and are at the climates mercy (we haven't got long, particularly knowing how slow we are to react positively in fixing this with every excuse under the sun being dreamed up)  

What if science is wrong? Than everything is dandy. We don't have to worry about stupid weather n ship. The knowledge gathered in the quest to battle climate change helps to make our lifes more efficient, healthier, ecofriendly, less wasteful.

What if the naysayers are wrong? Let's end the whole charade? Let's take the chance...

You seem to believe that there are no costs associated with this "quest to battle climate change".  On the contrary, the costs are massive.  They're the kind of costs that should only be paid if really necessary.  

Some of them may be necessary.  But, we can't tell, because we are continuously being told demonstrably incorrect stuff.  That's the problem that were discussing here.  Nobody is saying not to take the environment seriously.