it seems to me that the way scientists address the question of "is this global warming?" is wrong-headed, even though it's not literally wrong. We deal with th

it seems to me that the way scientists address the question of "is this global warming?" is wrong-headed, even though it's not literally wrong. We deal with this frequently in medicine. There are lots of questions that the non-expert doesn't know how to ask, or asks clumsily. When patients ask "doctor: does this medication have any risks?" The literal answer is "yes; dozens of side effects are possible, ranging from mild to life-threatening". But that answer is so accurate that it's useless. What almost all patients really want is "help me understand the most common side effects, and tell me what to watch out for regrading rare-but-serious side effects". With respect to global warming, we don't really care whether this event can be tied back to antropegenic climate change in a linear way. What we really are asking is "should we be taking climate change seriously?". And the answer is an emphatic "hell yes". This is an opportunity for people to focus on climate issues. I worry that HN will think I'm a paternalist jerk, but scientists shouldn't get bogged down in the literal answer to the literal question in this case. My best answer would be "climate change is real, accelerating (meaning getting worse every day we continue to consume more fossil fuels), and the biggest threat we have to face as a species".