Indeed, I pointed out some of those problems as well.
Ultimately, it seems like regardless of the certainty or lack thereof of human involvement we are going to get action on it.
Better to have a Republican do it to minimize the impact rather than a leftist who will maximize the power-grab.
I think we have a difference in opinion of whether it is better for America if Republicans:
(1) Cooperate with Democrats to enact harsh "Environmental Laws" or
(2) Resist (perhaps futilely) efforts by Democrats to enact harsh "Environmental Laws".
I believe that Republican cooperation with Democrats on this issue, will:
(a) result in harsher, more damaging environmental laws because conceding [in error] that a "global warming problem" actually exists will also concede "leadership" to the Democrats on this political issue and
(b) mean that Republicans will have to share the blame when those harsh laws cause massive job losses in the US -- while doing nothing at all to effect either CO2 levels or global temperatures. Moreover, this "shared blame" will make it harder for Republicans to use the "I told you so" argument to rally support to repeal those damaging "feel-good" laws.
As they say: "Sleep with dogs, catch fleas."