Most people are getting their ideas from newspapers, commentators, etc., where the conclusions often are based on apples and oranges, and the particular ax being ground- not on what was actually said in reports in peer-evaluated reputable journals. Unless one reads these articles, with the bases and data for the author's arguments, AND the qualifications and limits he places on his material, one is unable to evaluate what one hears on CNN, etc.

Much data is still being recovered and evaluated, e. g. the climatic data from cores in Arctic and Antarctic ice, the changes in distribution of plants and animals both long and short term, the interpretation of cyclical climatic events, etc.
Science is built on the accumulation of valid data over a period of time. The mass of data at one point may indicate a certain possible conclusion, but at a later point new data will have modified the former interpretations.
The effect of man on the earth and its climate is evident from the data compiled from ice cores and other sources; not yet fully answered, however, are matters of short term versus long term effects, rate of change, just how much life will be changed if the effects continue, or if certain corrective paths are followed.

Contrary to some opinions, several major industrial concerns have research groups actively studying effects and possible solutions.
Worth watching, for example, are the developments in hydrogen fuel, being investigated by several firms including Shell, and being tested with regard to motor transport by BMW and the Iceland government.