The term global warming really did a number on the awareness of climate change.
FWIW a better phrase would be "climate destabilization".
And to your other point, it must be emphasized that oil and coal companies knew about it 40+ years ago, and chose to fund opposition research and disinformation instead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_co... Exxon knew since the 1970s
http://www.climatefiles.com/coal/mining-congress-journal-aug... Choice quote from this article in a 1966 coal journal:
> If the future rate of increase continues as it is at the present, it has been predicted that, because the CO2 envelope reduces radiation, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase and that vast changes in the climates of the earth will result. Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London.
Frank Luntz brags (exaggerates) about changing the vernacular to benefit the GOP/deniers - we should do the same to scare people into accepting and understanding the current reality.
"Global warming" always referred to an on-average increase in warming on a global scale. The term wasn't the issue, it was people intentionally deciding they didn't like it for political reasons.
It's also important to remember that this isn't a gradual phenomenon - there are certain break points that, when we'll reach, we won't ever be able to go back. And by all accounts, unless we significantly change the global economy literally today, there is no chance that we won't reach those breaking points in 50-100 years. And even if we did today, there's a good chance it's too late.
The mess we're leaving for our children to fix should make all of us feel deeply ashamed.
Like most prophecies by religions do.
C - catastrophic - there is no evidence in the historic temperature record that anything unusual is happening.
A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources.
G - global - not local.
W - warming - see above.
In addition, there is no good evidence that the slight warming in the last 50 years is causing extreme weather events, and there isn’t any good theory to support it, either.
CO2 from burning fossil fuels and burning plants has a different isotope mix than does CO2 from other sources. We can use this to tell how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from that kind of burning. There aren't enough wildfires or other natural sources to account for more than a small fraction of it.
Hence, we can prove that most of that type CO2 comes from human sources. And that type account for most of the increase since pre-industrial times.
There is no evidence in the historic temperature record that the Earth has ever been this hot in the past million years.
> A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources.
The human contribution to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not small, it is almost the entire quantity. There is very little contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from non-human sources (of course, methane from cows for example is a human source).
> G - global - not local.
Not sure what you mean here.
> W - warming - see above.
see above.
> In addition, there is no good evidence that the slight warming in the last 50 years is causing extreme weather events, and there isn’t any good theory to support it, either.
The brainwashing propaganda from interested science deniers is not better informed than the practically unanimous conclusions of all the earth's climate scientists.
The Earth is headed for catastrophe, both ecologically and geopolitically. Sea level rise is already above initial predictions, and that effect alone will displace the 300 million people currently living in one of the lowest plains by the sea in the world, in Bangladesh. The coming migrant crisis at the confluence of India, Pakistan and China, three nuclear power with an uneasy relationship, would be cause for serious concern alone.
Of course, the ever increasing droughts and extreme temperatures (including >50C wet-bulb temperatures, which can kill healthy adults outright) in those same regions makes them a literal hotbed for social and political upheaval like the world has never seen.
You are simply deluded if you think everything is fine.
This is what really keeps me up at night. Nevermind the direct effects of 4+ degrees of warming if we fail to stop it - we'll start WW3 long before the temperatures hit that.
So that's why the key here is strong international organisations. We need to co-operate both to have any chance of making the changes that need to be made to keep warming within survival bounds, and to keep discussions open so when conflicts do arise, they are less likely to result in war.
A: The enormous consensus based on available evidence contradicts you here in your implication that human contributions are irrelevant. Natural sources have also been balanced out by natural sinks. Humans are both destroying natural sinks and releasing more of our own. The issue is also not whether we "own" a majority of the emissions, it's about upsetting a delicate balance. Chaotic metastable systems do not necessarily need a big push in order to have a massive impact. Sensitivity to initial conditions is very high.
G & W: you're not expressing your criticism here. Global average temperatures are rising. What is you dispute with that?
Your last point: I'm not aware of alternative theory for the observed changes that fits available evidencr, while on the other hand there are plenty of research papers like the following: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770. Whether or not there is smoking-gun level proof, available evidence fits the theory.