'Winning' a debate like this isn't strong evidence for the facts though, any more than when European Christians won the debate over the pagans. In the case of climate action, it feeds into the modern mental condition of interventionism, which afflicts members of a society when they become so highly specialised that they have full time jobs like politician. People always feel the need to do something, when doing nothing would have delivered superior outcomes.
The point I make regards winning the debate is about the need to move on from re-hashing arguments that have for the most part been settled. The practical outcome is that the world for the most part has accepted that AGW is a problem that requires addressing, that being the case, it is far more productive debating how that problem is best addressed, even if the solution you offer here ( to do nothing ) is part of that debate.
The impact of carbon on climate is far from settled. The primary data is just too scant, and probably always will be. This is why there is disagreement over it, even within the scientific community. Even if it's only one percent that is a massive lack of consensus compared to issues where there is no debate. However the bigger problem is that so many people are so prepared to believe scientists when they don't actually know what they do, and in most cases have never even met one.
In saying the above, there is always room in science for conventional theory to be tested, that is after all how science works at it's core. For the most part many a theory is not ever really proven, it only stands up to any and all scrutiny at best.
Personally I am against intervention in nearly every case. Modern humans intervene far too much, and cause new problems that could've been avoided. We can't help ourselves. But in the case of carbon emissions, that in itself is an intervention we chose to solve the non-problem of how to transport people and goods further and faster. It was never necessary, and is certainly something we should be dialling back. It might even change the rate and/or direction of climate change.
Your last sentence here touches on an interesting subject, because it goes to the root cause, which is that the basis of our system of capitalism is ever growing consumption, which can only ever be satisfied through the exploitation of labour, and as that has become less acceptable in the west, we have outsourced that exploitation to the global south's developing nations.
And that's where we ( the west ) benefit most from providing the global south with the cheap energy they demand, because that energy allows for the exploitation of labour to be far more productive and therefore provide us with ever more cheaper goods upon which to keep our economies expanding.
In short if we were to stop providing for the expanding energy needs of developing nations, our economies would likely simply collapse.
