My impression as a non-scientist is that the latter is not so unquestionably 'accepted' by all competent authorities* as the former. Am I right about that?

No, I don't think you are. I think most scientists who are current understand that climate change is very real. Down here in Texas they argue evolution just as hard as they argue climate change - the religious right would like to have people presume that there are lots of scientists who don't accept the science of evolution that is in most debates these days, because it suits the religious right that that be so. They want to feel that science is on equal footing with religion and is a choice when in fact this really is apples and oranges. They may have a few examples of people who weren't the best scientists in their fields or a few who are truly religious and don't believe the science they work around, but they're few and far between.

The problem has been the notion that there are always black and white "sides" to things and equal time rulings on television required that if you had someone who was a solid member of the scientific community to discuss something you had to find an "opposite," usually some barely known lunatic fringe person who suddenly is elevated way above their pay grade to "debate" with someone who actually knows what they're talking about. It has been a deplorable failure, and the FCC finally axed the rule, as I understand it, but there has been little fanfare because that might cause people the examine all of the mis-information it allowed to enter the mainstream news cycle. Let's see if broadcasters begin to understand that debate can happen around a sliding scale of facts and belief systems.

SRS