The global climate is changing. We know this because the earth is 1.33 degrees warmer over the last 100 years. Fact.
Could it be because Co2 emissions have increased over that same period? I'm not smart enough to know that, but the vast majority of science supports that conclusion. Nothing is 100% certain, but to put it into perspective; scientist debate more about cigarettes health effects than they do about global warming.
1.3 degrees or so is a "fact" in the scientific sense, which means that it has an uncertainty attached to it, and that uncertainty is quite large. But yes, most scientists will agree that there was a period of some warming. That is not the core of the debate.
The problems are the next two steps. First is the reason for this warming. Here you will start to find a much wider range of opinions among scientists. The answer "CO2" is highly debatable. It is not as simple as "more CO2 means more greenhouse effect", far from it. CO2 is a very inefficient greenhouse gas and the physics of radiation transfer through the atmosphere is quite complicated. In addition, CO2 does not like to be accumulated in the atmosphere and tends to be absorbed into the oceans. How much and how fast? again a complicated answer. There are many models that try to calculate these things and many of them are garbage. There are also other suggestions as to the cause of the warming. So, currently the real science is stuck in this stage of the physical "cause".
The next step *IF* you pin the warming on CO2 increase is whether or not human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. Regardless of the answer, it is a hypothetical discussion until that *IF* is settled and them you can argue further about human contribution to CO2. The problem is that politicians and various ideological groups jump in and carry it from here. The "man made global warming climate change" theme debate is outside the realm of science. There chain of reasoning that leads from the measurements of global temperatures to "humans are to blame" is incredibly weak and this is what many scientists protest against. Yes many, there is no consensus about it.
Finally, the courses of action suggested to counter climate change are entirely ridiculous. No matter how much CO2 emission humanity can save by driving hybrid cars, CO2 quotas, and singing cumbaya, the achievement will be erased by the growth of the population within one generation. It is probably much more beneficial if we spend the money and resources to lean to live with the climate change than try to change the change. The OP had a few years without hurricanes - change is not bad for everyone.
