The science of what? That we have climate change pretty much "everybody" will agree on.
The science of climate solutions is not even close to being settled. I have a Master in Energy (BSc in Energy) with focus on renewable energy. But try to get a group of professors from different fields to get along to see what is the way forward, or the mix of what. Nuclear energy, geoengineering, hydrogen, fusion, batteries of all kind, destruction of nature to create pumped hydro storage, capturing CO2, wind, concentrated solar, solar PV, biodiesel (and from what), ethanol, gas, Algae, bore holes, solar thermal seasonal storage, biomass, ocean energy and the lists go on.
So when you say that the science is settled I think your looking at the simple part where we see the problem but still has a huge way in what the actual solution.
People who say that we should just do this or that are usually pretty much always out of the loop and rarely know the downside of the technologies. It's not that we have 10 000 thousands of professors in the world that are just stubborn egotist. We don't have obvious good solutions yet. We do for some places, Norway have so much hydro that it's ridiculous, other places have other things and worst part is that many don't have that good options.
Please show some humility to people who have worked on solutions for the last 100 years.
There are also many steps that we can take right now that are completely uncontroversial. For example requiring proper insulation for all new buildings and starting a program to retrofit existing buildings.
This is not the way and a delay in implementing proper controls nobody can afford.
Directly mandate use of clean solutions. No trade, just cap and regulate. Hard deadlines and checks. Including on outsourced deployments to close that loophole.
Science can never be so arrogant. Most people probably know this but it's worth restating in a heated debate about the 'evidence': The null hypothesis exists for a reason; that is because we can not prove anything. We can only eliminate those theories which are demonstrably false.
In the past 10-20 years we settled so many things, and predicted so many others, that we are running out of ideas on what to settle soon.
And even if science reached nirvana just now (spoiler: it did not) the exact action to take is nowhere close to being an easy choice. We're in a prisoner's dilemma in which if you stop polluting I can take advantage of that, kill you economically and the climate goes to hell faster because you where out tree hugging and left me to do whatever I want with the planet.
Enough political will and all the polluters will bend to it.