It almost goes without saying that the science of climatology is filled with great uncertainties. I am rather agnostic about the subject, particularly when it comes to our abilities to predict the climate with computer modelling, but that's mostly because of my own level of ignorance on the subject. The scientific debate on climate change is currently being won by those scientists who suspect that humans are contributing to the recent observed global warming. They may end up being completely wrong about it, of course. But unless you study the subject in significant detail, your skepticism and opinions on it are practically worthless.

The other debate is the political debate. This is only partly based on science, but also on religion, philosophy, economics, greed, fear and ignorance. This is the debate that you typically see in the popular media, such as newspapers, TV and the internet, and thus it may skew your view of the subject. The political debate generates more heat than light, while the scientific debate generates more light than heat. But both debates are needed. One only wishes that the political debate was as illuminating as the scientific debate.

It is true that conflict is a necessary component of science. But there are real conflicts and there are fake conflicts. The conflict between evolutionary scientists and creationists is fake: creationists are simply deluded nutcases. The conflict between evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased) is a real conflict: are genes the only units of natural selection, or can species or even groups of species also play that role? Fake conflicts do not advance the progress of science; indeed, they can hinder it when the nutcases are in positions of power, such as in school boards and the White House. Only real conflicts move science forward.