I don't believe people are attacking climate science primarily based on their own preconceived beliefs. At this point most of the "debate" is about politics, economics and self interest. And very few people on either side seem truly motivated by what will happen 200, 100 or even 50 years from now.
If carbon emissions are an overriding concern, then we could relatively easily replace most of our carbon emissions with a large concerted nuclear power build-out in the next twenty years. One which would give us hundreds of years of power supply without carbon emissions just based on Uranium alone. We know nuclear power is relatively safe and a workable solution compared with the more speculative technologies or draconian economic and population contractions that have been talked about.
Or we could just wait and see what comes down the pipeline in terms of new more efficient and more workable energy production technologies, which seems to be really what we are doing de facto.
Either way spinning our wheels in this "debate" seems like a deliberate distraction that all sides are using to distract from the fact that we don't seem close to an agreeable solution to the problem.