Those are legit concerns. From a conservatives perspective it doesn't feel like the public debate we are hearing is among scientists, though. It feels like it is among politicians. And some of them are in full whack-a-doodle mode. The Green New Deal is completely insane, for example. Getting rid of cows? Rebuilding every building? How would that even be possible? Eliminating all fossil fuels in 12 years? Flat out insanity! Especially since it's a guarantee that China and India would not be doing the same, and as a result they would destroy us economically. If the questions that article is asking have been answered, please point me to the source.
Yes, well, that's really going to take an exhausting effort on my part, as far as pointing you to sources that is. For the full list of questions, which in that Heartland article are really observations I thought, and not really questions. I can look for answers within the literature, but it will amount to counterpoints to those observations, and since those listed observations from that article are from the Heartland Institute, I see no reason why I should trust them as accurate observations to begin with, since, from my perspective, the Heartland Institute's agenda is entirely political. Just as from your perspective, you did not trust the answers to climate skeptics provided by the skeptical science site I posted earlier.
Speaking as a layman again, because that is all I am where climate science is concerned. So, it's likely I will not bother trying to find those sources for you. You will, however, likely find them covered in that skeptical science site, which addresses just under 200 objections raised by science skeptics.
Sure the public debate is among politicians. Some scientific debates have political dimensions. Even something seemingly non-political, like the question of when the Americas were first settled by man, had political offshoots, such as in the Kennewick Man episode, which pitted American archaeologists against First Nation people's. That's an obscure reference for most I'm sure; just an example of how an archaeological debate spawned a fierce political struggle.
Obviously the debate over climate change, and whether humans are influencing global warming, has huge political implications. Most politicians are not also climate scientists, but when all the vested interests are added up, the political dimension is overwhelming the scientific debate. Within this thread, I've mentioned peer reviewed literature at times, as a standard in science. But peer review has its flaws too, as this essay summarizes nicely, so, in the interest of objectivity, I post it. It's illuminating, and in this essay, it's applied directly to climate science:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf
