It almost doesn't matter what a few credible scientists think about climate change--it maters what the overall consensus agree is and what most climate scientists believe. A huge part of science as a field is consensus.
I think this debate goes round in circles because we rely on news organisations to do several things at once, and they should probably be unbundled.
We rely on them to report immediate, factual events, like a fire in a hotel or an impending storm.
We rely on them to do longer form reporting on social trends, new scientific findings, business and governmental activities, etc.
We rely on them to locate and expose corruption and malpractice amongst the powerful.
We rely on them for book and film reviews.
And sometimes we rely on them to engage in analysis and generally telling us what to think, because figuring out our own opinions on complex topics is hard work. We'd like them to do it for us and then boil things down to an executive summary that we can then adopt wholesale as if it were our own opinions.
It's not clear to me that it makes sense to bundle so many things together, or if this is a useful combination or just an artifact of an earlier era when distributing the written word required lots of equipment and big agent networks. Now the internet exists should we be defending these agglomerations or breaking them apart?
Einstein finalized his theory of relativity in 1916 and it was widely accepted in the physics community by the 20s. Additionally, Einstein was primarily a theorist (vs an empiricist) so while there was room for initial disagreement, the solar eclipse in 1919 offered evidence and majority opinion accepted the theory.
Climate change has both consensus and evidence. It seems irresponsible to keep spreading doubt in the face of both.
He published his first important papers in 1905 and received the Nobel in 1921. His work was controversial for decades, but I would argue that there was no consensus in physics at that time.
