No, it is not remotely contentious.

The actual situation is that the petrochemical companies are spending a large amount of money on spreading FUD to obscure just how dire the situation is. They are immensely wealthy, meaning that they are immensely powerful. Concerted action to combat rising carbon dioxide and methane levels would destroy them. So, they are spending a lot of money fighting efforts to control fossil fuel use.

Since the science is completely clear and unambiguous and there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the easiest tactic is to fog the issue. To spread suspicion that there is contention. To pay for contrarian researchers to say it's unclear.

Additionally, it is important to realise that our times are ones of major cuts in funding for science, basic research, academic institutions, and so on. This means that research organisation and individual scientists have to chase industry sponsorships.

The majority of geologists, mineralogists, palaeontologists and so on work for petrochemicals companies, or work for companies or organisations that are funded by petrochemicals companies. So they are muzzled: they are not allowed to speak.

I personally have spoken to 2 such individuals recently. In public, both say "it's unclear, there is conflicting evidence," etc. Their employment requires this.

In private, off the record, they are blunt. "We are fucked. Completely, totally fucked, beyond any hope of remediation or moderation."

No, it's not controversial or unclear.

But there are legions of conspiracy theorists, religious advocates and assorted nut-jobs who delight in seizing on any hint that it's not certain and spreading FUD.

And there are those who don't care because it's clear that stopping this process will be vastly expensive and very bad for the stock markets and so on, and they care more about money than the planet. This seems insane to me but I know such people personally. It's quite common.

Equally, media organisations come in 2 forms: those committed to balance and impartiality, who convey both sides' views, 50% each -- the real science (99%), and the paid lobbyists and fringe lunatics (1%). And the other kind, who spread lunacy (InfoWars.com etc.) or what they are paid to spread (Fox News, News Corporation, etc.)

So the media representation is that there's controversy and it's not certain.

There isn't. Go look at the scientific view, and we are completely fucked. We are in the exponentially-rising part of the curve of the 6th great mass extinction event and it is not meaningfully possible to stop it.

It is, of course, possible to work to make it not quite so bad, but it will cost trillions of $/€/£/whatever. The rich don't want that. They're mostly old. Companies are immortal or nearly, but they, by design, chase the easy money and the safe bets. The industrial revolution and the economic system of the world is based on machine power replacing human and animal power. It will continue to pursue that until it collapses.

At this point, changing that requires replacing the current military-industrial complex and economic system of the whole world. That's as hard or harder than cleaning up our act, so it's not likely to happen -- not until it's too late.