Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manipulation is on both sides of the spectrum, so I wouldn't unconditionally trust Al Gore or The Guardian either. (Not necessarily denying the topic). The media is simply by definition vulnerable to manipulation. At some point you have to trust someone who tells you the truth. There are many ways to bend the truth. What we need is strong ethics and a strong backing of them.
You're argument is basically, we can't trust either, so we should just throw our hands up and ignore them all? The entire point of the scientific method is to come to some common understanding of fact. What we need to demand is that articles are backed by properly run studies so that we can come to a common understanding based on good methods. Yes, Al Gore believes that the current warming trend and climate change is…
No. I didn't even suggest some immediate action for the current situation. There is probably no way to fix it.
The scientific method cannot solve everything. Maybe it can prove global warming. But the human factor can still corrupt any facts established. That is why I said we need strong ethics. We need to accept the truth, even if it is inconvenient.