Good points but the current framing of climate narrative is OK as well
Interesting thoughts there.
For messaging, the theory of reasoned action states if you want people to take action on something, first present a scary story of inaction, then show that there is a way out. The balance between the two angles will spur people to take action. Those who subscribe to this line of argument for bringing about action on climate change will find value in what you write, but also will accept that there is a place of scary stories.
Also, the effects of global warming/climate change is visible already: the lonely polar bear on an ice sheet, the raging hurricanes that made worse with a heated ocean, the spiralling temperature are all stark visuals that alert us that all is not well. Be that as it may, much of our stories on climate change are also by nature abstract, based on model based future scenarios and these are not always easy to convey to a non-specialist audience. So while I see a lot of value in your thesis about putting a more positive action based spin on climate change narrative, I’d be careful to avoid terms like our current narratives on climate change are wrong (if I understood you correctly).