As Richard Feynman said, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When there is a medially and politically forced consensus, it leads to "intellectual tyranny in the name of science".
One single scientist who disagrees with the notion that humans are primarily responsible for climate change would already show that there is no consensus, strictly speaking (Science is about questioning the majority belief). And there are hundreds of very reputable scientists who have disagreed with this over the years, and there is a lifely discussion around this, but those who control the political narratives make it appear there is none. Belief in the majority is not scientific, it's political.
The fact that you mention that contrary opinions regarding climate change are associated with a political group should be alarming to you.
A minority of scientists believe in a flat earth. Should we assume then that the world is flat? Or should we accept the incredibly strong consensus that the world is round?
If 90% of the human population on earth would just disappear tomorrow morning, would climate change just stop and become a non-issue? Or would it just be pushed back for a little while?
Please re-read my original comment.
I'm saying that there's disagreement about the degree to which humans are contributing to global warming, and can influence climate change, one way or another, in any meaningful way.
With that out of the way, the obvious next step is to prepare for the changes that’ll come and learn to live with it, instead of pretending like it can be stopped or even reversed by enacting more bullshit taxes on stuff, or by never eating steak.
There's broad disagreement about the role humans play in this process, and our ability to influence it one way or another in any meaningful way.
There's also broad disagreement about the efficacy and implementation of policies aimed at tackling climate change.