I think you're missing something fundamental to the Conservative parts of the Republican Party: government control. Let's break down climate change for a second and we can better spot the disagreements as we go
The earth has gotten warmer since we started keeping records
Scientific fact. Not many argue against this because the records go back long before the theories we have today.
The earth got warmer due to carbon dioxide in the air
There are some minor disagreements here and there but there seems to be a strong correlation. Still not that many political arguments at this level.
Humans are the primary source of carbon dioxide
There's a case to be made here that humans are making it worse, but carbon dioxide sources are somewhat varied. There's some who disagree with this assessment (not endorsing it either way, just noting it's there), and it's hard to solidify on either side because we don't have an easy way to determine all sources.
Human activity is the root cause of climate change
This is where the friction gets going. The problem with this is that there are lots and lots of political alarmists in this arena like Al Gore, who produced the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which has proven to be inaccurate
Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
Unfortunately, science has not backed that up
The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
A similar problem was criticism of George W. Bush in 2005 about Hurricane Katrina
"The Bush government rejects international climate protection goals by insisting that imposing them would negatively impact the American economy," wrote Jürgen Tritten, Germany's environment minister and a Green Party member.
"The American president is closing his eyes to the economic and human costs his land and the world economy are suffering under natural catastrophes like Katrina," Tritten charged.
The problem there was that Katrina wasn't caused, or even made worse by, the policies of Bush
But the experts add that it is scientifically unfair to blame any one hurricane on the warming trend.
"We would expect hurricanes on average should be getting more intense because of global warming, but it's hard to make the connection in any one event, like Katrina," said Jay Gulledge, senior research fellow at the Pew Institute for Climate Change.
Let's put aside the science for a moment. Imagine one political side starts making wild claims that don't always match up to reality. Would the other side be more or less inclined to listen to them, even if there were more solid scientific arguments to be made?
The solution to climate change is government regulation. Like RIGHT NOW
Here's climate activist Greta Thunberg
One way forward would be to declare a global climate emergency, a proposal that she says has been backed by the U.K., Ireland and other countries, but not yet by Sweden.
This would “send a clear signal that we’re in a crisis,” she said.
And an indirect rebuttal by Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg (emphasis mine)
In times of emergency, we’re all in it together. And that’s a good thing.
But there are two caveats. The first is that emergencies do not last, and when the emergency is over, the old rules need to come back. If they don’t, then capitalism, democracy, and liberty are done for. Emergencies must be the exception to the rule, because if we make the spirit of emergency the rule, then we no longer live under the rule of law, but the rule of tyrants or mobs.
The second problem is that real emergencies must be obvious to all — or at least nearly all. There are moral equivalents to war. A girl down a mine shaft is one. A meteor heading to earth is another, as are various forms of natural disasters, zombie, vampire, and C.H.U.D apocalypses, etc.
The problem is that there are people who are very attracted to the power that comes with emergencies. Power is seductive in whatever form it takes: Emergency powers, money, Infinity Stones, the One Ring, or, as we’ve seen in the case of Jussie Smollet, the cultural power that comes with being able to claim you are a victim.
This leads people to declare emergencies when they do not exist or to exaggerate real challenges so they can do an end run around the conventional rules of democracy. There’s been a lot of the latter over the last decade or so.
Now, not all of this is centered around emergency powers. The Democrat's Green New Deal isn't an emergency power grab, yet it can't resist being political either. Somehow it manages to link dealing with climate change to high speed rail (a long time Democrat favorite), labor law reforms, jobs and leave policy, free college, no nuclear power, etc. In other words, give Democrats full control of the US economy and they'll solve all the problems of the world, along with climate change.
As such, it's unsurprising that Republicans have been more skeptical of the claims pushed by Democrats. Viewed through a political lens, it looks less like science and more like rhetoric to them.