"It took years for a consensus on the existence and causes of climate change to emerge."
I submit that this is a largely meaningless sentence. Climate, by definition, is a process. Like the ocean, it is never at rest, but continuously changing. So if you acknowledge the existence of climate,which it is hard not to do, you must necessarily acknowledge the existence climate change, since climate means the ongoing change in meteorological conditions. Note, though, that the link takes us to something about "global warming." So we do not mean "climate change" at all, but are referring instead to predictions regarding the direction such change may be taking. Regarding which, read this abstract of an article in the International Journal of Climatology. A 100 to 300 percent difference is not slight. Please note that what I am most interested in here is the weaselly mode of discourse.