I’m not sure the facts are debated. Aren’t we always hearing that there are just a few skeptics, who get widely quoted (unfortunately, one of them managed to convince Michael Crichton).
Or, maybe the issue is scientists’ views of the facts, vs. laypeople’s views of the facts. Scientists agree, but there’s still lots of contention among laypeople.
I think other issues are contentious too — for example, is Iraq a huge success story or not, or what are the effects of welfare.
And, maybe you could separate out the different strands of the climate change story. So, the basic trend isn’t under discussion (at least among scientists), but the effects are, and how we should adapt = very contentious.

1) Americans will have to become dramatically more efficient in order to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and this transition involves short term costs.

2) As a species, we are programmed to deal with burning forests, but we are not programmed to deal with piles of dead and dry wood with lightning in the forecast. Americans acted to protect our waterways when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, but we needed that sense of emergency to prod us to action. Sadly, most non-scientists have not reached the conclusion that the planet is in a state of ecological crisis.

3) Many non-scientists question scientific evidence that supports climate change because most of them fail to see our current situation as a dire threat to humanity, and because short term costs are associated with GHG reductions. In other words, they question scientific evidence because they don’t think climate change is all that bad and because a response will cost them money.

The active sliming of the broader environmental movement is at play here.

Disinformation is well financed and organized, as warming is recognized as a key wedge issue. Should the public become convinced that they have been mislead on this issue - then the entire house of cards becomes at risk, ergo the emphasis on discrediting environmentalists and dismantling the EPA.

Far left activists unknowingly played into this. Earth First, etc. opened the doors for ‘Eco Terrorist’ hyperbola.

In my work I invariably encounter otherwise rational, educated people who still feel that CC/GW is a partisan political issue - a manufactured Democratic hysteria.

This is most problematic, as the more strident one becomes, the more it feeds the enemy.

I coach people in my efforts to studiously remain apolitical in educational outreach, and to utilize ‘gentle education’ efforts - pointing people towards the appropriate resources to allow for their own interpretation, rather than arguing from our own position of acceptance.

This is less than efficient, but can convert some.

Sam