Do you mean the climate research done by climate scientists or the discussion about it in the general public?
I am referring to public perceptions and attitudes rather than the actual science.
To illustrate the point, consider another example. Smoking tobacco.
So far as the science is concerned, it's pretty clear that smoking is harmful to health. So far as attitudes are concerned, we're getting to the point that the younger generation may not realise that not that long ago smoking
inside shopping centres, offices, restaurants and even hospitals was acceptable and quite a normal thing to do. Don't even mention how thick the smoke used to be inside some pubs and especially nightclubs.
These days however, nobody would seriously suggest that smoking be permitted inside a hospital or even a pub. Attitudes have changed and there's very little chance that we'll ever go back to what it used to be. I'd consider that one "settled" so far as public opinion is concerned.
The same goes for a few other things too. The world didn't end when they stopped putting lead in petrol and that debate is dead in developed countries. It seems that functional engines were indeed quite practical without needing to poison anyone. Again, that issue is "settled".
But so far as the climate is concerned, there is no consensus amongst politicians or the general community on what to do. We can't even agree if there's a real problem or not, and even if there is a problem them practically nobody in a position of power seems to have a workable solution to actually fix it. If anything, public opinion seems to be drifting somewhat away from the issue.
Smoking, for example, was settled because most came to realise that it's just not good to be in a room full of it all day. Add in that the majority of the population doesn't smoke, and throw in the implied threat of legal action, and it's a no brainer that it shouldn't be allowed inside. And so it was banned.
Leaded petrol went away simply because there were alternatives available at minimal cost. Add in that there is a clear link between lead exposure and health damage and there was really no reason to continue with it apart from private profit for those wanting to continue manufacturing outdated engine designs. And so it was phased out in Australia from 1985 onward and disappeared entirely about 20 years later.
Climate change is nowhere near that point yet. Regardless of what the science says, the general community isn't convinced, at least not sufficiently to accept the costs (including the environmental costs) of doing something about it. People don't seem willing to accept the economic and environmental costs of reducing CO2 in the absence of overwhelming proof that it's actually a problem. Add in that we have no easy "bolt on" or "drop in" solution and that puts it firmly in the too hard basket for the time being. Hence we get some token action for political reasons but that's it.