Isn't the real debate about the cause of climate change, and hence the best addressed aspects?
I would hope all true scientists can agree on what they see but still debate there underlying phenomena and this the predictive models
In other words, there is no debate at all. We (the human race) have known about the GHG mechanism for over 50 years. We've had the instruments to validate our understanding for well over 20 years now.
There is some disagreement between projections, the models definitely don't converge to the same point in 20-100 years, but they just don't agree on the breadth and depth of the catastrophe or the timeframe we have left to take action.
There is also disagreement wrt proposed solutions. Some things (like mass afforestation) are really too complex for us to predict the impact.
https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen...
There is always room for debate, especially in the face of consensus. Without it astronomers burn and science dies.
Where there isn't room for debate is the claim that there's actually an ongoing debate within the scientific community about the basics of climate change. That's just not true at the moment, and claiming otherwise is mistaken at best, and corporate propaganda at worst.
And it is a interesting philosophic question. How do we know, what we etc.
Funny thing that.
Seems to me climate science is constantly being questioned.
It’s questioned publicly by roughly half of the most powerful politicians of the most powerful country in the world, and t try uat country’s current leader. It was and still is questioned publicly by many of the most powerful companies in the world.
Can you be more specific? Are there particular questions or areas of research within the broad domain of climate science that you believe have been surpressed or ignored by the scientific community?
It doesn't help that the text of things like the green new deal speaks so much about "ending oppression" and not about "this is exactly what's necessary to reach carbon stability". It takes what should otherwise be a scientific discussion and drags it into the mud of progressive politics.
Here's an example to what I'm talking about[1]:
> "It aims to “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities and youth.”"
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/climate/green-new-deal.ht...
Stop with the bad-faith distractions.