I took a look at the procon site, I'd not seen it before so thank you for the link.
I see that a large proportion of the "cons" regarding anthropogenic climate change refer to research by an organisation called Heartland Institute, who refer to themselves as one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks. ... Its mission since its founding in 1984 is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
The Pro side is advocated by the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the IPCC and the United Nations.
The thing about science is that not all sides are created equal; some people have ulterior motives or don't really understand the science. So, which should we go with? 4 internationally-renowned scientific organisations, or a free market organisation that feels it necessary on their front page that they have been libelled by liberal advocacy groups, and who have organised "America First" Climate Change Conferences?
This is good: www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-myths-what-science-really-says/
It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that current climate changes are man made. Its not the climate scientists who are trying to hold back a tide, its the deniers who will not accept the truth because they think it will cost money to fix it. Its going to cost a lot more money not to fix it.