The subject of global warming, (and climate change, both terms were used) originated decades ago, within the scientific community.
Correct. I heard about it in the 1960s, in Newsweek.
But the scientific community didn't publicly introduce it, it was brought into the public eye in the 1990's not by any scientists, but by a biased, non scientist politician, Al Gore.
This is mostly wrong.
The scientists published in research journals, which are public. The media did pick up on it, and there were frequent reports.
The view of most scientists, is that they should do the science and leave policy decisions to the politicians. The scientists did the science. The media did report the science. But, with the exception of a few like Al Gore, the politicians failed to address the policy questions.
So that's red flag number one, it should have been introduced by science, not politics, and it shouldn't have undergone a name change.
I'm not seeing any basis for that "red flag" comment.
The scientists did what they should do. The media did what they should do. The policy makers, for the most part, failed completely to participate. The few politicians who were willing to act started raising their voices because they saw this as an urgent matter that was being ignored.
The red flags should be for the many politicians who failed to act.
Now for the actions to address it, have you ever noticed that the organizations that are most vehement against climate change, like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, are also the most vehement against nuclear power?
That may be true of Greenpeace and Sierra Club. But there are also plenty of people who want action on climate change and who advocate nuclear fuel as an alternative.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity