i appreciate your perspective, and allow me to suggest this: so much of this isn't really "debate" at all, it's just disagreement and arguing for that sake. spectacle.
Reasonable people can disagree on interpretation, but blowhards are rarely reasonable, and often are pushing an agenda, or are paid shills. Our collective understanding of what we are doing to our environment needs to be led by curiosity and a desire to understand. Scientific debate founded in honest curiosity doesn't have an agenda and doesn't seek an audience, or sponsor.