Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.
Look, I am sure you won't like this or agree, but as a human being, I can only say it as best as I have come to see it, and from trying to follow this issue over the last 15 years or so, there's a couple of things I see quite clearly, albeit, had I not read the stuff I read, I would not see it this way, but for what it is worth, as reasoned debate here's a couple of key points:
All of us are part of one sub culture or another and we all make value judgements. The environmental movement is a values driven culture, and is broadly about human's place in the ecosystem, which is a values judgement which says that humanity is one species on the planet. That particular values judgement downplays the role of human, seeing human as just another species. That's kinda the deep ecology view. Now there's variations on that, as not everyone goes that far, but that is an example of values judgements. That humans are less valuable than forests.
Now your values judgements may or may not line up with that. That's not my point. My point is that you are making values judgements, one sort or another, as for example, all the people who say we must act, and then pick solutions which are base do the belief that humans are essentially selfish and consume too much and don't know how to live in balance.
People who say that would not, for example, say that a human is a part of nature, created by nature, and that a human is merely living out their natural competition and drive in evolutionary natural selection to become the dominant species and transform as much raw material as possible into survival advantage, and that therefore the answer to running out of resources is to go to space and mine asteroids, because that's what nature does, expand and propagate life as fas as possible.
Can you see the implied values judgements in saying that humans should cut back on consumption? Now I'm not saying that's a wrong judgment, but it is a judgment, ie. ethics and not facts, it is a human ethical judgement, and only then do people decide what we "must" do to combat climate change. Instead, people who don't have this judgment about selfishness will more normally go for the "adapt" with "new technology" ideas, rather than the "reduce" and "consume less" ideas.
Climate change as an issue about solutions is all about values judgements. And that's why oil companies as symbols of big bad polluting uncaring capitalism are seen as the only ones driving the politics, whereas the good guys like wind are seen as just doing the right thing based on the facts.
Yet, we use lots of energy so any solution will be a big solution, and wind farms are not little friendly wind mills, they are billion dollar installations, and before long they'll be trillion dollars' worth of installations, and that by definition is big energy, and I find it hard to believe that those big companies don't have vested interests in promoting the idea of man made climate change and decarbonisation.
And nuclear has a vested interest too. Now we may say they are "clean" but they will have vested interests in driving the climate change narrative. It is a very simple point. Even that ultra right wing "bitch" Margaret Thatcher took to talking about decarbonisation as a way to break the coal unions back in the 70s. But these days, because "decarbonisation" is morally linked with "less greed", activists overlook the vested interests of the big alternative energy companies, companies which are looking to receive billions, in wind, gas, and nuclear.
Second point, by "soft" I mean it is hard to prove. There are some fields now where they asking whether the work is actually science or more like philosophy.
Why? Because when it strays from hard testability then you wonder whether it is just an elegant sounding philosophy.
The whole "we have to act" mantra largely covers over this flaw, that climate models inside computers are NOT experiments, they never were experiments, and they never will be experiments, but they get called "experiments". That alone, just for starters, should tell you something is slipping in the standards and reasoning. And there is a historical precedent for this kind of slip.
Back in the 50s and 60s there was the idea that eating fat caused heart disease. There was also the idea that sugar was the real culprit. And the experts at the time knew the evidence was not conclusive. But they said, "gee the health of the nation is at stake and we must do something to provide the public with urgently needed guidance to stem this epidemic of heart disease, so we cannot afford to wait for 'certainty', we have to act!" and so they did and here's the real problem: they got it wrong, and actually drove people to eating the very foods which DID give them worse health.
It went from what was a somewhat worrying heart disease problem, into a vastly worse epidemic of diabetes and obesity, which is so bad it may ruin the health systems of some nations, as they struggle to cope with it.
See, there is no "safe" answer around climate change. Whatever you say we "must" do will have consequences. And there is no shortcut to the truth. You either do the science properly (such as for example not calling computer models "experiments" and treating them as validated when they are not) or you simply say, "well, we don't know, we just don't know." and then saying, well, given WE DON'T KNOW, how should we as a society deal with that uncertainty? Um... make backups of key infrastructure for example?
Become better able to adapt to CHANGE, whatever it might be? See, that's a very different set of answers to "we are greedy humans and we must consume less".
So, to stop this getting too long I left a lot of stuff out, but that's really two key points: all sides in this are making values judgments; and there are no shortcuts in science, it is better to say we don't know (because if you stop calling people denialists and actually start to look, you can see it isn't known, and this is not the first time major scientific bodies all rallied behind a theory which was lacking real evidence). Then we can start to look at rapid climate change (warming, cooling, rain bands moving, desertification, re-greening of the planet, etc and whatever) and design ways to protect infrastructure and systems.
And by all means let people continue to champion for a less materialistic, more connected, more humanistic, more united planet, but do so for ethical reasons.
Don't bother trying to shoehorn an ethics into a science theory. Because then the science theory is never allowed to be wrong because it "invalidates" the ethics, which is stupid, as ethics is its own justification, as a real area of human inquiry. Be nice to your neighbour, not because of climate change, but because that is ethically a rational thing to do for a better world and for everyone.
This is why you have the political polarisation in climate change, because it is really both sides turning a science hypothesis into their own "moral" drive. Same happens with abortion/creationism/etc. And it is quite stupid and unnecessary to mix ethics and science so neither can do its job properly.
So I apologise that's a long post but without context I'm more likely to be brandished one of those alt-right denier troll types.