Using the term "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming" is a prickly subject for me....
If you use "Global Warming" they might point out that it is supposed to get warmer as we are in a warming period of an ice-age,
and the dispute is wherever it gets warm faster than it's supposed to be. And the "supposed to be" is patially guesstimation.
If you use "Climate Change" they might point out that earth's climate is changing for billions of years,
and the dispute is wherever the current change is natural (like in the past) or man-made.
The whole topic is prickly, because of financial incentives for deception on both sides...
I work for a company making billions on renewable energy and CO2 reduction doctrine,
yet my stance, after doing a lot of research, is still kinda agnostic.
But I agree with tp4...
The "have-and-want-to-have" cycle (as described by i.e. Erich Fromm) leading to overconsumption, IS
a big problem of our times, no matter the stance on climate-change, or political views, or anything.
It's one of the drives that is useful in a natural environment where scarcity is commonplace.
But in a world of (virtual) abundance, it leads to self-destruction, misery, and decline,
same as excess following other drives (gluttony/obesity, lust/porn-addiction, etc.).
Just my 2 Cents
Recent Posts