The debate about greenhouse gasses and climate change has largely moved from a scientific issue to a political issue, with political affiliation seen as representative of personal opinion regardless of science. However, there are continuing scientific studies on the greenhouse effect, and the effect itself has been proven as true (a thicker atmosphere acts like a glass greenhouse, trapping heat); the most contentious issue is whether it adds to a continuous increase in global temperature.
Most scientists agree that pollution caused by greenhouse gases is bad both for global temperature and for the environment as a whole. One way to resolve the debate is to focus not on the political aspects (cost, regulation) but on the scientific cause and effect. By proving that greenhouse gasses have a direct link to overall global temperature, the issue of whether to limit or eliminate those gasses becomes less important than the issue of whether this link affects global climate change. Politicizing the issue usually leads to a deadlock, with both sides arguing points they don't actually understand. Scientific education will lead to increased awareness, understanding, and solutions.
As far as the public debate goes, the natural scientists, not suprisingly, soon had the constructivist .The idea that facts provided by science can help resolve political .to control consumption in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes! I agree with Aneesh.