What's really at stake is our industrial and post-industrial standard of living, which I find very scary personally. But to call it a threat to humanity, or worse "life" or "the planet" makes me think people don't really understand what climate change is.
I will counter by saying that, functionally, there is little difference. What is at stake is our means of feeding ourselves. Our means of getting enough drinking water for all of us. For some stability and order and for their not to be anarchy. For having the remotest signs of biodiversity around.
If, a thousand years hence, there are still humans around, who gives a shit. Because what will have been lost is so grave in magnitude, and so unnecessary, that it would be a shame to even call it life.
The reason for this storm in a teacup is that useful posts such as this one get derailed by fruitless discussions about the words themselves or arguing about things that don't matter.
At any rate, my take is that it's an excellent move by the Guardian, and I hope NYT also follows suit and starts calling it climate crisis. Our challenges are SO huge that it's difficult to be hyperbolic enough at all. EVERY single biomarker that you can think of is off the chart perilously.
We are wreaking absolute havoc on every single system critical in supporting life, and it I'm all for terming it in as alarmist a tone as necessary.
I don't even agree that what is at stake is our standard of living. There will be changes yes, but the real issue is, how are we going to handle the migratory pressures brought on by the coming warming (or cooling as it may be, no-one knows the exact outcome of a succession of tipping points). It requires reason and compassion, not panic.