I've spent quite some time investigating these claims on the technical side, and every single one of the supposed skeptics has, on investigation, shown themselves to be merely biased towards their preferred outcome and not skeptical of their own ideas at all.
It's pretty much identical to the evolution skeptics, or those who are skeptical of smoking causing cancer, or those who are skeptical of the Holocaust. There may be a few slightly technical bits bandied about as loin clothes to cover the naked bias, but a small amount of investigation exposes the fraud. The liars don't bother to address or even understand the science of climate change, they just pick at the edges and think that if they can discredit one side argument, it brings down the whole field. Science and reason do not work that way (politics do, quite often).
If any technical HN readers actually do want to learn about climate science, Ars Technical has been covering it quite well over the years at the level that a computer programmer can jump right into.
It's also interesting reading the comment threads there. There are the usual drive-by doubters, some determined and repetitive doubters, and even a few knowledgeable commenters that provide figures, links to papers, and solid arguments that completely demolish the doubters political games. It's also taught me quite a bit about how people attempt to deceive others and control conversations, which is a useful skill for dealing with politics in life and redirecting the political back to the practical.