Welcome Ernie. I certainly hear your frustration and confusion. There are so many problems here.
First and foremost is the complexity of the relevant science. Much of this is cutting-edge, and so for that very reason hasn’t been well understood yet by the general public.
Second is the simple fact that there are people with vested economic interests in obfuscating the results. Just as the fake-science “Tobacco Institute” spent years smearing mainstream science about tobacco’s link to lung cancer, some oil companies have funded questionable or bogus research on the link between carbon dioxide and climate change.
Third is the problem with journalists who are poorly educated in scientific issues, on short deadline, who do not help to clarify the relevant issues, instead giving knee-jerk “balanced time” to bogus science.
Fourth is the basic problem of scientific illiteracy among the general public. People learn science badly in school, don’t care to keep up with it in later life, and don’t hold their politicians, writers and journalists up to any sort of standards of scientific understanding. If anything, knowledge of science seems a public liability. Don’t get me started.
This is stuff that CFI attempts to clarify in its various publications, PoI, etc. Skeptical Inquirer is a perfect example. Or check out the better popular science publications, like Natural History magazine or Scientific American. But on cutting-edge topics you will get some fine differences of opinion. That’s part of the fun of them.
As for the specific things you mention about global warming, the environment and organic food, there is a lot to be said. There is no large-scale difference of opinion within scientific circles about the reality of global warming, or that it is caused by burning fossil fuels. And re. organics, the evidence that organic food is better for you is pretty close to nil. But that really isn’t the argument for growing food organically. It is rather that the powerful pesticides, hebicides and fertilizers used in conventional farming often have bad side effects on the general environment.
It should be noted, of course, that the downside to organic farming is that it is much less productive (calories per acre) than conventional farming. As a direct result it is relatively wasteful of land and will always be more expensive to produce than conventional. So organic agriculture is a tradeoff.