I do recall that at about this same time (again +/- 2 years) we were discussing the "pause" in global warming that has at that point gone on for about a decade. Since this pause has continued for now nearly two decades there must come a time when we stop calling this global warming, no?
I'm not going to try to persuade you that there has been no pause in global temperature rises, but there are certainly reasons why, for an individual, they might be experiencing what appears to be the opposite. One of these is the weakening of the circumpolar current which allows colder arctic air to travel further south. If you live just south of this 'boundary' local temperatures, especially during the winter months, will be colder than in previous years.
However one of the mains reasons the current is weakening is because of local warming effects within the arctic, so the question becomes one of: Is the global average - taking the rise in temperatures in the arctic, the drop in temperatures at slightly lower latitudes, and any change in temperatures in the rest of the world (using similarly appropriate local scales) - rising, falling, or remaining the same?
Hmm, ok, that might have been an indirect attempt at persuasion...
Anyway, back to the point, you finished with a question. Partly due to local variances, such as the one described above, in global temperature trends an alternative phrase, Climate Change, was suggested to replace Global Warming. You may have seen it in such acronyms as the IPCC. For some reason, even given reasonable explanations, those people who have come to be termed denialists were not mollified.
I do have to wonder about the mentality of these AGW "scientists". For people that claim to be all about science they seem very hostile to people that provide evidence that may disprove the AGW theory. ... Instead I see anyone that sees a flaw in the "science" is met with accusations of being a "denier". Which I'm not sure why being a "denier" is supposed to be such a bad thing.
There are extremists on both sides, people who rabidly believe ... well, what they believe, and will attack anyone who challenges this viewpoint. This mindset does not accurately describe most scientists*. If there is evidence it will be considered. If there are flaws in the science they will be looked at and corrected. This is one of the fundamentals of science.
Being a critical scientist is practically redundant, as all scientists should be critical. Confounding factors, sources of error, alternate explanations - all this is part and parcel of doing science. Denying evidence (without a very good reason - and even then this should be included in any explanatory notes when going public), cherry picking evidence to show something that's not true, fabricating evidence - all this is not science, and you'll note I started with "denying".
Being a critical thinker (scientist or otherwise) is good, being a denier is not.
I thought science was about taking in new evidence and using it to better our understanding of the universe. Instead we have "the science is settled" and then what? Are we supposed to stop looking at CO2 levels and temperatures now?
And to end quickly:
In a sense, partly, it is. I think, in this case context is everything - increasing concentrations of CO2 lead to increasing temperatures due to IR scattering, of this there is no doubt, none whatsoever, which basically means that question is settled. I'm not sure why you would even ask such a thing. Is this an example of the "Straw man fallacy"?
*It should be pointed out that most climate scientists have concluded, from the available evidence, that: global temperatures have been rising suprisingly rapidly of late (roughly the last 50 to 100 years) and the rate of increase itself is increasing. They have further concluded that the primary factor influencing this rise is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and, furthermore, mankind is. by and large, responsible for this rise in CO2. There is still some disagreement as to what exactly will happen in the future but the current consensus is that if we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise, global (average) temperatures will continue to rise, and various "Bad Things" will happen which will negatively impact the lives of at least the majority of the world's population.