To most people on the right, Climate Change is just a new term for global warming, and they feel the term was switched because the models were wrong, they believe climates change and that those changes occur following natural scientifically explainable cause and effect processes. After that, there is virtually no unity on the matter. Why? Simple, 99% of the people on the right and left have absolutely no idea how thermodynamics works, so they listen (usually badly and miss stuff) to what scientists they trust tell them. There are plenty of respected scientists who have various degrees of skepticism on this subject.

The actual issue on the table is simply this: Write out a function T(CO2) = where T is temperature and CO2 is the amount of CO2 present in the air. Demonstrate that that function can predict the average Temperature of the planet to within 0.1 degree Celsius without failure for one decade in a row. When someone does that, the right will accept - or the vast majority of it will which is all that matters - that the model is accurate to make predictions, obviously such a model would also have to predict solar activity's effect, but the model would only have to have that accuracy once the measured solar activity for a year was included. That's it, that's all it would take, some might prefer 0.1 Fahrenheit I suppose, the right expects and will accept only a model capable of making meaningful predictions, that doesn't mean it has to nail it flat down a decade in advance, it just means the equation would have to be right when the real data for a timespan after the equation is presented is fed in, recent volcanoes, major oil spills, any variance in the Planet's albedo, total solar illumination. The right believes that that is a reasonable demand for claims of scientific accuracy in a model, and they assume that if such a model can not be presented, then too many uncertainties currently exist to make predictions, and if you can't make accurate predictions you shouldn't discuss trillion dollar overhauls.

Of course, convincing us it's definitely true is not the same as convincing us that the proposed solutions, which invariably seem to bare remarkable similarity the Socialist Utopia concepts, are the only or best solutions, or even that there is a need for a solution. And the lefts habit of trying to portray any skeptical scientist on the subject as being in the pocket of big oil or utterly insane doesn't help, it just makes us further distrust the left.