A debate may exist when different parties have different views on a given subject.

A debate will never exist if a dominant party imposes its views to all other ones.

The climate debate begins with the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) that is based on four assertions:

1. global warming is taking place,
2. emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs explain it,
3. their increased concentration in the atmosphere is overwhelmingly caused by human activities,
4. the consequences can only be harmful, especially for the poorest.

The AGW opens the way to make dire forecasts for an uncertain future:

• On going rise of the temperature.
  For any doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration IPCC indicates in its 5th report. “Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).”
  Note here that the heat balance approach taken in model calculations results in a sensitivity of 0.4 to 0.8 °C, all feedbacks uncertainties taken into account as published by IPCC. 
  As we shall see on this site, my heresy is not to accept the exaggerated IPCC pseudo-consensus.
• Global climate changes are capable of reaching a tipping, irreversible point.
• Shifts in the conditions for life on Earth:

-    weather: on-going conditions (temperature);
-    more frequent catastrophic events (hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, heavy rain spells);
-    ice and permafrost melting in the poles and in the mountains;
-    migration of animal and plant species;
-    loss of biodiversity, extinction of sensitive species;
-    acidification of the seas.

• Catastrophic impact on large population groups:

-    rise of the sea level, loss of land;
-    increase frequency and intensity of natural catastrophes;
-    disturbed fresh water supply;
-    droughts and floods leading to crop losses.

• Social unrests resulting from all the above, and large emigration streams of people looking for a safe harbour.

After more than thirty years, and despite claims of a scientific consensus, the case is far from being closed.

These peremptory and unfounded statements must be refuted point by point.