"Let's investigate them further, shall we?"
They are in fact being investigated further. Quite a lot of effort goes into this.
However, the popular press and infotainers report on every anti-climate change person or paper, and sometimes (sometimes) provide equal time for the opposition. If the representation were proportional to the division of opinion within the scientific community world-wide, there should be 10,000 provided with equal time.
Now, don't get me wrong - the "anti" people need to do their work and publish it, and it needs to be read and criticized and tested. As do all testable assertions This is exactly how science works. And, there would be no scientific progress - ever - if people did not upset the current consensus. We would (e.g.) still be bled and leeched by physicians.
BUT, the unbalance in the popular press creates an impression of a giant controversy where none actually exists. Thus, we have politicians making decisions about the future of the planet based not on science, but on re-election strategizing which is itself based on ill- and mis-informed public opinion.
And here we are.
The proof is likely to be in future events. I probably won't see them (although I have watched - literally - the death of 70% of the world's coral reefs in my lifetime). My kids will live through the coming events, and I fear for their future. Everyone needs to honestly ask themselves "what is the risk of future cataclysmic climate change?" Let's say you think it is only 1:10000. Would you feed your kids food that had a 1:1000 chance of poisoning them? Of course not. Remember all the E. coli scares, tylenol, tainted formula?
So there is a huge disconnect. Driven exactly by politics and political talking heads who have no knowledge of the process and proper reading and use of science. If we wait until Global Climate Change is "100% proven", well.... that will never happen. It never, ever does in science.