Each claim is progressively harder to nail down and prove. If there’s one thing modern forms of media is good at, it’s make mundane things seem spectacular.
That added energy is changing the climate but it does not just mean that everything gets evenly warmer. The added energy means that some places get warmer than other. The differences mean that some areas get dryer and some get wetter.
Those increased differences in temperature and moisture result in storms and other weather events that have more energy and cause more problems. The large scale weather events like the Jet Stream or El Niño become more erratic . You get bigger storms, bigger floods. Sometimes you get bigger dumps of snow with the greater moisture. Some places get less moisture and are warmer for years at a time and fall into drought.
Those erratic weather and climate changes cause problems for humans, animals, and plants. More food sources underproduce or are destroyed. Hunger drives people to migrate. That causes disruptions in neighboring nations. Politics becomes more strident and antagonistic. Small wars eventually break out.
Yes, the messaging has changed a little over the years. That is partially as scientists have studied this more and learned more about both the primary and secondary effects of climate change. The media simplifying it so the public can understand has adjusted the terms they use as our understand realizes that this is not just a matter of simple warming but of a complicated system getting more unstable.
> Small wars eventually break out
I wonder if that isn't happening already here and there.
Bigger ones? What'll happen when areas large as a country, becomes mostly uninhabitable.
One more thing: There might be more authoritarian regimes in countries not affected that badly by the climate changes -- because the migrants will want to go there. And then the voters in those places, choose more brutal and authoritarian governments who build borders and use violence to keep the migrants away.
So, more war and dictatorships in the future, is one scenario?
The "case" is settled, by the way. It's only special interest groups with a financial incentive in the status quo that try to muddy the water with disinfo and make it seem otherwise. Those, and people who don't want to believe it's happening because it's uncomfortable.
Good scientific claims hold up to skepticism.
Good scientific claims don’t need to form a pseudo-religion around their “findings” and push to censor anyone who disagrees.
Scientists go into science not to make a lot of money (they don’t) they tend to go into it because they have a passion for investigating things, answering questions, and because they see big problems that they want to help solve.
What do you think scientists are doing when writing grant proposals?
They aren't primarily motivated by money. But the oil companies are.
A. The climate is getting hotter.
B. Weather events are more “spectacular”.
If the evidence supports the claim, A is clearly easier. If there’s a lack of evidence, B is clearly easier to prove because level is “spectacular ness” has no clear definitions.
Of course someone could probably come up with a spectacularness metric, but at that point there’s so many assumptions you have to make it’s almost a circular argument.
This is, of course, easier to prove. In fact, mountains of evidences support this claim. It can be considered "proven" in the same way the heliocentric theory or the existence of Pangea is considered proven.
The problem is that people don't understand what "average" means, and keep saying things like "If the earth is warming how come my town got record snowfall last winter? This disproves global warming!"
In other words, the renaming of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" has got nothing to do with the abundance (or lack) of evidences. It's a purely pedagogical issue.
> First it was everything will get hotter, then it was the climate will change, now it’s weather events will get more spectacular.
The problem was thinking people cared about the first two. They’re both true but only “every few years a natural disaster will wipe a town off the map” seems to get people interested.