I was always wondering why there is the consensus in climate science, especially when other scientific fields often leave ample room for debate.
In physics, for example, there is no consensus on topics such as dark matter. The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theory, which is one of the alternatives to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model, is still very much alive. Popular theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder is one of the vocal proponents of MOND. If you read scientific journals, you will find that in modern cosmology there is no consensus on topics such as the age of the Universe (some recent paper claims the age is twice as long), and that in physics of condensed matter there is no consensus on whether LK99 is really a superconductor.
A lack of consensus in the area of dark matter is hardly surprising given no one has actually been able to observe anything other than its proposed impacts on large galaxies and their neighbours. We don't even know if it actually exists or not, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a better explanation for their rotational characteristics, for instance.
There is reasonably strong consensus in other non-climate science fields. For instance, quantum mechanics is more or less universally accepted as the explanation for the very small behaviors at the subatomic level. There may be the odd disagreement here or there as to the theoretical level with things like string theory. The same applies in climate science, but everyone agrees with the observed results even if they don't fully accept how things got there.
I don't know why you think the edge of theoretical physics is a good retort to some physical system that we can observe and model well with mostly well understood physical principles. For instance, you can measure a good part of the
LWIR absorption of CO2 very accurately using a $200 thermal camera and a blackbody. The emission profile of the sun is well understood. Plug the two together and you have a first-order estimate for CO2 forcing in watts per m^2 per part million, then input the amount of CO2 that we've pushed into the atmosphere and you have a good estimate for warming. There are lots of factors to correct, like the percentage of CO2 which ends up in oceans, but it'll show the effect closely enough if you struggle to believe that it exists at all.
No one serious in climate science disagrees that the planet is warming and that humans are causing it. There's debate as to the exact extent of the anthropogenic component, and how harmful that is, but the consensus is pretty solid on the outcomes being overall bad.