Big picture views
There are massive influences on the debates involved. Some are vested (Oil companies, Companies involved in producing "green energy sources" etc) Some are indirectly vested (construction firms (putting up a wind tower generally involves cheaper overall labour costs) transport firms, utility corporations (where they are no longer government managed) etc)
1) The climate *is* changing. That is not in dispute.
2) Humans are producing huge amounts of CO2 and dumping it into the atmosphere. That is not in dispute
3) Humans are massively altering the natural structures that keep our ecosystem functioning (cutting down trees, building dams, building cities on land that was greensward etc etc), building farms on land that was timberlot or otherwise wild, adding shipping lanes on what was previously untravelled open ocean. No dispute there.
4) Humans are spreading out, increasing in numbers and consuming energy faster than ever before. Not in dispute.
What **is** in dispute are the following factors:
a) what relative change we as a species will experience in the next x to y years. (i.e. how MUCH higher are temps going to go, how MUCH higher will water levels go etc) The science has been horribly wrong in the past, likely due to missing input data, incorrect projections or just plain not using scientific method. There is no guarantee that any of the current models are more or less accurate or have more or fewer correct factors included in the calculations.
b) which factors are the largest or most affective elements of the changes above. The models used keep changing and they all appear to point to all that CO2. Even scientists involved question wether or not we have all of the required factors in the models we have now. Perhaps the state of our primary source of energy is having a larger influence than we thought. Old Sol is definitely not in the same state it was in 40 years ago.
c) which aspects of our energy use we need to change to make the greatest reduction in our CO2 output. The Next BIG target appears to be meat consumption. It appears that agriculture may be the biggest influence on overall energy consumption - but thats just one study ...(/<sarcasm> Oh --wait what??? food is part of our energy costs???? damn /<sarcasm>)
d) just what form(s) of energy we can replace our current energy sources with to reduce the CO2 output.
Personally - my take - and just my take.
1) fossil fuels have to go - perhaps long range diesel (Trains not trucks) will stay -- but perhaps it can also be replaced, given enough infrastructure. Planes might do well running on current fuels, perhaps we can fiddle out some form of Hydrogen fuel that wont leak out of everything and wont blow up at the flick of a switch (literally).
2) electricity transmission infrastructures have to be improved. NOW. if we're going to dump fossil fuels. Thats an enourmous increase in transmission volume even if we have a 40% increase in use of public transit, powered by electricity. If we all want to keep our personal transport - its an even larger volume. Heating -- same thing. Rural transmisson of electricity is a joke. We'll need to bring rural transmission forms up to current urban transmission volumes to go this route. Current urban transmission forms will have to be capable of carrying 3 to 5 times the volume they move now.
3) Wind and Solar at this point in time have no hope of filling that gap in generation capacity. We need nuclear, and a damned good bit of it, and soon. Wind and Solar *might* provide a largish chunk in the future *if* the technologies improve sufficiently -- nuclear we understand, and it *can* substantially fill the gap, right now. Yes the build time seems too long. Solar tech has not demonstrated the improvement curve needed. Wind is very very old tech. The question in my mind is - can FUSION be developed sufficiently to replace all other methods of energy generation BEFORE wind and solar get to a level where they can replace more than 20% of our requirements?
4) the only reason that these answers have not been laid down at our feet and provided as a single, straight coherent path is that the amount of money to be made in hyping the issue and radicalizing the public's perspective is so staggeringly large that, once again, greed rules.
Long and short - you need to do your research, you need to read up on things, you need to discard the hype and fabrications that have been manufactured by vested interests in *any* direction and follow logic. You also need to take a *damned* good look at what you do that consumes energy and figure out if you are willing to give up that consumption and believe you me, when you really think about it, there are a staggering number of places where you waste energy, or at the very least can substantially reduce the amount you use simply by changing little things.
You need to find a quiet space, a long way from the rest of the people, learn to grow your own food, meat, coffee, tea, silicon, trees, plastic, cars and pram toys. Then you can bury your head in the sand or follow the lemmings off the cliff if you want.