Yes, there has been manipulation on all sides.
What we know is that the world is warming, it is warming at a faster rate than ever before, that the rise in GHGs is parallel to the warming, that we pollute, that it is likely that the pollution has had an effect on climate.
The debate that is in focus right now relates to whether any warming/cooling relates to a terrestrial trend or how much) is impacted by human variables.
At present, no one - absolutely no one - has a functional understanding that would be capable of isolating minute variables like humanity. That doesn't mean that it is or isn't happening, it means that we don't know.
Now, if you want to say that we impact the system, as a statement it is correct. However, the same will apply to a solitary mosquito - it will also impact the system, so what's the answer, eradicate all life on the planet in hopes that a static equilibrium is achieved?
I'd have thought it obvious; relative to before we started polluting on such a grand scale.
The geological record is pretty clear.. There were significant swings long before man walked the Earth... That in itself is obvious.
To you and some others perhaps. Not so with everyone.
That argument goes both ways, doesn't it?
It doesn't? It seems to me that science has a pretty good record of discovering things, explaining things, and amending its mistakes as it moves along. Science used to say the Earth was the center of the universe. It doesn't any more.
What that statement indicates is that science dynamic, but is only accurate in hindsight. A geocentric planet and flat Earth were factual based on the "science" of the time, today, that is clearly not the case.
Saying that AGW is factual because science says so (particularly in light that there is no uniform agreement, or anything close to it) is a real stretch.
