But the evidence for a 'global emergency' is lacking.
Merely pointing to adverse weather events is not good enough. Even pointing to the modest warming that has taken place over the last 150 years or so is not good enough. Both can be explained by 'business as usual' in the weather system. The bar really ought to be set a lot higher when it comes to promising doom and destruction to us all unless we wreck our current way of life.
There have been plenty of publications from scientific experts to warn us about being too hasty and getting into a panic about our CO2 emissions - some can be found in this listing for example.
But here's an extract from a very recent critique of climate scaremongering from Belgium:
'The current climate model (‘IPCC model’) systematically yields highly overstated predictions compared to measurements and can therefore not be used to form climate policy – especially if that policy results in extremely high costs and destabilises vital parts of the energy infrastructure.
We are not just saying that. Already some of the most renowned scientists have preceded us (e.g. Freeman Dyson, Frederic Seitz, Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg), including Nobel Prize winners (e.g. Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin). They also argue that the earth’s climate is far too complicated to be explained by a simple one-dimensional CO2 relationship.'
And later on, they comment on the strategy of using children to promote climate alarm:
'Child being misused by alarmists
Source: Climate Intelligence Foundation, as reported by WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/08/refutation-of-the-the-belgian-climate-manifesto-by-the-climate-inteligence-foundation/