For global warming and against global warming could be a terminological problem.
Is the other team proposing to increase global warming while you are proposing to halt it?
That might be the meaning of for and against global warming.
The hockey stick analogy comes from 'Inconvenient truth'. The graphical evidence is presented that with minor ups and downs, global average temperatures have turned a corner, like the bend in a hockey stick.
There have been other periods when temperatures have risen with only slightly less abrupt angle. Since the mini-ice age there has been none that has been as consistently upward.
Sea levels may have risen slightly, or land masses may have settled into the magma just a bit. We would see the same result. But are the ice caps melting? Antarctica is maintaining its ice mass. Some parts of Antarctica, in particular the peninsula that points to South America, has lost a lot of ice. The rest of the continent has been receiving extra snowfall, resulting in more movement of glaciers toward the oceans.
Be careful of this line of reasoning. While the ice level has been maintained, it has been maintained by larger snow falls. Larger snow fall is predicted as oceans warm and are covered with more water vapor. It is an evidence of warming.
The single most significant Greenhouse gas is water vapor. This gas increases as air temperature increases. So, global warming causes global warming. It is the main reason previous warming periods have continued.
Carbon dioxide is a significant GHG. And in previous warming periods we have seen an increase in CO2 levels, as evidenced in ice core samples (reported in inconvenient truth).
CO2 rises as temperature rises, whether it is because of man's actions or not.
Failure of plants to absorb CO2 is consistent with drought and desertification. It takes water for plants to absorb CO2. Global warming creates drought and desertification, so global warming creates more CO2 in the air. Little question that CO2 and temperature might be correlated.
Oceans get rid of a lot of CO2. As temperatures rise, oceans will get rid of less CO2, even return some CO2 to the air. Again rising temperatures drive up CO2.
Rising temperatures cause more rapid breakdown of soil carbon stores, into CO2. So we again get warming causes more CO2.
Now all of this does not imply that more CO2 does not cause global warming, even though global warming does cause more CO2. What it says is that global warming does cause global warming by adding CO2 and water vapor to the air.
A greenhouse gas is one which bends long wavelength radiation, and by repeated bending keeps it from escaping into space.
Note that water vapor and cloud are not the same. Cloud is not a greenhouse gas. When clouds are warmed up, they become water vapor, and do trap heat. As cloud, they reflect more heat than they trap in daylight.
This is significant. Global warming causes global warming by allowing more sunlight to reach earth by evaporating the clouds, reducing reflectivity, and trapping heat with water vapor.
Global warming and cooling are real and very significant. We may not be able to stop global warming by removing our contribution to global warming. Once it gets going it has a life of its own.
Is global warming the cause of m=natural disasters?
Perhaps some, certainly not others to any extent.
Droughts and torrential rains, often with major winds will be more common as there is more water vapor in the air, and that is a characteristic of GW.
Tsunami? no. earthquakes, volcanoes, epidemics... generally no.
Tornadoes are an in-between situation. They can occur without GW. More water vapor does suggest more volcanoes. GW does tend to increase the temperature difference from lower air to upper air, so we should expect more, and more intense tornado activity.
Be careful... GHG does not absorb sunlight and reemit it as infra-red. The light comes down to solid or liquid matter, the earth, is absorbed by that matter, and re emitted as infra-red, long wave length light from the solid or liquid. Then greenhouse gas reflects it.
If GHG were to absorb and reemit incoming sunlight, we would have no greenhouse effect.