Now we know:
Scientific consensus on human-caused climate change was already well established by 2001, and the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report called warming 'unequivocal.' The appearance of major scientific debate was largely manufactured by fossil fuel interests and amplified through politics and media.
By 2001, the scientific case for human-caused climate change had already been built over decades. The IPCC's Third Assessment Report concluded that most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years was likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. In 2007, its Fourth Assessment Report used even stronger language, calling warming 'unequivocal' and assessing it as more than 90 percent likely that human activity was the main cause.
In March 2001, the Bush administration announced it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The White House Council on Environmental Quality, headed by former petroleum lobbyist Philip Cooney, edited government climate documents to insert uncertainty language that agency scientists had not written. Those edits were exposed in 2005, after which Cooney resigned and took a job at ExxonMobil.
That manufactured doubt was reinforced by think tanks, industry groups, and media 'both sides' coverage that portrayed climate science as more contested than it was. Their audience was not working climate scientists, who already had the data, but journalists, legislators, teachers, and the public. For many students in the early 2000s, climate change was presented as an open debate not because the science was unclear, but because organized political and industry campaigns had successfully made it seem that way.