They've lost and this proves it.
The only people who don't know/believe that fact are the true believers/those who are in it for the power and money.
As marketing goes this is a hideous effort at re-branding. It is verbally more cumbersome and ambiguous. Generally, you want to avoid that when trying to present an argument. Don't give your point a name so long that people A) it's too burdensome to speak or B) only spoken of as a joke about how burdensome it is to speak.
It's also unnecessarily ambiguous. What sort of disruption? At least the term "warming" alluded to the dire effects that were hypothesized. This is so obvious that it means any and all weather phenomenon will be blamed on humans. It seeks to eliminate the scientific principle of falsifiability.
Moreover, it reeks of re-branding. They tried global warming then shifted to climate change because they couldn't prove the former but the latter seemed unimpressive. Notice that the term "climate change" barely lasted 2 years.
They want to say "disruption" beause it sounds more ominous. They might as well call it Global-You'll-Die-If-You-Don't-Do-Exactly-As-We-Tell-You-Phenomenon. But global warming has lost its teeth. People have become skeptical and because of this newfound skepticism all this new term will do is set the burden of proof even higher for the believers/hucksters. When the true believers and their puppet masters can't meet that skepticism the final collapse of this non-sense will be final and complete.
