Branding catastrophe

One idea that came up a few times at PIELC is that the terms "global warming" and "climate change" are both ineffective in conveying the urgency and importance of the situation, and more than that are sorta, well, lame. Although "anthropogenic climate change" is probably technically the most correct term, in that it captures the fact that the phenomenon is caused by humans and is not a blanket increase in temperature so much as a radical change in weather patterns accompanying an increase in mean global temperature, "change" is at best a neutral term, and can be a massively positive thing, as some guy down south pointed out last year. "Warming" is even more problematic, because warmth is generally seen as a positive attribute, and seems to imply an upper limit in the context of temperature: warm is less than hot. It was even suggested that "global warming" was coined by Karl Rove, though that was the first time I'd heard that. James Kunstler named his book The Long Emergency which seems to capture something distinctive about the phenomenon, but is hopelessly nonspecific. At the conference Matt Pawa used "global heating" which gets around the warm/hot problem, but still doesn't quite sound right.

Does anyone have any ideas for new names? And is it even worthwhile trying to come up with new name, or are "climate change" and "global warming" too deeply embedded in our consciousness at this point? Do you think it even matters?