Can you point to a scientifically predicted and demonstrated (not just speculated) consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with?
"Thwaites is like a cork in a wine bottle—when it melts, it could trigger the collapse of a large portion of West Antarctica, equal to roughly 11 feet of global sea rise." ... "Winds are now pushing a layer of warm ocean water up underneath part of the glacier that extends out into the sea and melting it, faster and faster. If that part breaks off, the entire glacier would destabilize."
https://www.wired.com/story/antarctica-thwaites-glacier-brea... https://interactive.pri.org/2019/05/antarctica/thwaites-glac... https://interactive.pri.org/2019/05/antarctica/doomed-glacie...
If an asteroid hit we won't be just dealing with 10-12 feet.
Do you have any scientific proof that this will happen or that it's likely to happen?
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/02/1904822116
https://www.businessinsider.in/One-of-Antarcticas-biggest-gl...
Scientifically demonstrated is not the same as speculated.
We do have economies B for controlled experiments and that data is pretty clear.
The richest countries are those who use the most energy to help them deal with nature.
Effects might happen depending on the temperature but we don't know which or how severe or when or if it will. We don't know how much humans affect it meaning that we don't know if it even make sense to do anything.
Evolution is not scientifically demonstrated. It's a way to interpret the data and observations from biology. It's the model that explains the best, but it's not in itself science just like climate science isn't science in any concise way but rather an interpretation of data.
It's that data which is being discussed and speculated about. We are very far from demonstrating even a fraction of what we speculate.
The most precise form of science we have is those that follow the scientific method ex. in physics where both theoretical claims and actual observations need to agree with each other plus predict the causality. And even here it's extremely hard to claim something is scientifically proven.
I am not sure what you mean with modern physics, can you be more concrete? What modern physics are just speculation and what does that have to do with the physics that isn't just speculation and theory?
Just because you believe a forthcoming climate catastrophe is real does not make it science in any meaningful way where we can talk about consensus and scientific predictions. You don't get a free pass to claim things just because you think the word as we know it might end.
Climate science is more akin to sociology or macroeconomics, i.e. a lot of speculation and interpretation and very little scientifically demonstrated foundation.
Climate science follows the scientific method too and stands on pretty solid foundations.