This is a long but excellent presentation of The Climate Desk, originally posted HERE where there is a blog post by Chris Mooney giving more details.
A recent post of mine on the topic is HERE.
The "empirical/theoretical" divide may be useful for purposes of helping foster peace at this stage. But all of the key data on climate change are empirical, going all the way back to Bell Telephone Labs' announcement in 1959, that there was a tight correlation between the histories of human industrial activity / CO2 emissions, and global temperature rise. Both climatologists and meteorologists have both theory and empirical data going for them.
I wonder about a possible next step. Perhaps some kind of collaboration that brings both fields together for a common goal. It might be something along the lines of climatologists offering to help meteorologists with specific practical tasks, such as estimating how climate change affects local and regional weather. Or it might be research questions such as studying the jet stream.
In any case, when the weather forecasters most Americans see on TV every night, start saying routinely, that certain violent and costly weather events are occurring more frequently as a result of climate change, that will get heard and listened to and acted on. It will translate to pressure on elected officials who were formerly neutral or hostile.
Humans have a remarkable talent for just managing to squeak by, when one or another crisis looms. As a result of which, I tend to think that we'll "get the message" with sufficient time to avoid the worst consequences. That doesn't mean the next couple of centuries will be easy, only that in the end we'll make it as long as we put in the effort.
I have noticed that the TV weathermen who previously mentioned that global warming is not real have at least stopped saying that even if they have not changed their thinking.
It is just plain incompetence to be a weather forecaster and not understand climate change.