When will you get that?
If you propose solutions, if you advocate the need for change, if you cry warnings, that isn't science. Science is the process for knowing about the universe, nothing more. It is the only reliable method we have for separating what is likely correct for what is not.
It does not, however, dictate what we as humans should do, what our politics or policies should be, what we should choose to do.
So, if you produce a video that explains the observed changes in the environment (temperature measurements, atmospheric gas readings, etc), the theory of how those interact, that is science. If you start preaching what needs to be done about it, that is not.
That isn't to say you shouldn't have opinions on it, and that you shouldn't express those, but don't try and pretend that it is science, don't try and pretend that your views are the One True Way(tm) and anyone who disagrees is "anti-science".
One of the big problems with the whole AGW argument is there is multiple levels, but people like you conflate them:
1) The fact of a global temperature change outside of known cycles. This is a measurement, and observation, and isn't really up for any kind of debate unless you can show said measurement is wrong (it is a complex measurement since we are talking long term global average).
2) The theory that the prime or exclusive cause of this increase is an increase in atmospheric CO2, due to human activity. Like any theory, you can argue the conclusions, even if the data is sound, provided you can find a theory that better fits the available data.
3) The conclusion that this is a net negative thing. This is where you start to leave the realm of science. For one, any conclusion like this is a judgement call. Even if you agree on all the data, you can reach a different conclusion as someone else. For example one of my coworkers believes that humanity is a bad thing, and anything that furthers it towards extinction is a good thing. I happen to disagree with that, rather forcefully. Also this judgement is based largely on computer models of what may happen. Fine, but models don't prove anything, they model, and they are only useful is they are accurate. There has been a lot of trouble in this area, since modeling the climate is an amazingly complex problem, the most complex modeling problem we've ever dealt with. So people can very well disagree with the models being used.
4) The policy or politics of what to do about it. This is not science at all this is, well, politics and policy. Even if you agree on what is likely to happen, you can disagree on what to do about it. One person can say that the correct approach is to drastically reduce human CO2 output, another can say the correct approach is a massive geoengineering effort, and yet another can say the correct approach is not to try and stop the change, but simply to prepare ourselves to deal with it. None of these are "right" in any objective, scientific, sense.
The problem is that you seem to be one of the many out there who thinks that it is all science. So that if you accept the data on warming, you them MUST accept the policy of what to do about it or you are anti-science, a denialist, etc, etc. You conflate the issues, and shout at people who disagree.