Not really. There are a few people that disagree with the consensus (that's the definition after all) and they get outsized media attention.

The only real debate is whether completely upending the climate in a very short (ecologically speaking) time frame will be net beneficial for humans or net detrimental for humans. We know it will be net detrimental for the general ecology and currently existing species.

And from what I've read a bunch of the people claiming it will be a benefit for humans are speaking strictly on an economic basis, not a quality of life basis.

There's an inverse correlation between the intensity of your coefficients.

No, there's not. Virtually all scientists with any knowledge of the relevant science concede that global warming is occurring, largely due to human activity.

What's more, the core facts of anthropogenic climate change are based on fairly basic thermodynamics, and were predicted with decent accuracy as far back as 1896. A great little book covering this is the recent The Physics of Climate Change.

There's a lot of noise made by those whose ox is going to get gored by getting serious about the climate. There's no scientific debate other than in the size of the debacle. (For example, methane hydrate--it's not included in the IPCC reports at all because our estimates are still too wide. Note that on the high end it's *worse* than the high end estimates for the effects of CO2--and they will add. Earth has seen that kind of temperature before--most of the rocks laid down at that time don't have fossils.)