Honestly, it's probably a mixture of both.
Personally, I think conservatives botched the message with their initial denials that there was no climate change. This allowed liberals to get the upper hand and control the message.
The questions that should always be asked about climate change are: Is it catastrophic? Is it necessarily bad? Should we worry about it? Can we fix it and what will this cost? Do we want to pay it?
Honestly, it's probably a mixture of both.
I understand that you're trying to sound "reasonable", possibly with the goal of being able to "negotiate" or "work with" climate change advocates. Unfortunately, that hope is doomed to failure, because it's based on false premises. For example:
1. Reductio ad absurdum - whatever "mixture" the human component of any change might be, it's so statistically small that it's irrelevant. "Science" is irrelevant - their arguments are not based in science (only junk science-the true scientific method is never employed by advocates) This premise is basically a joke.
2. Climate change is NOT the real issue (basic Alinsky - with the left, the issue is never the issue). The real issue is setting up a global mechanism for massive wealth redistribution and control, of wealth, resources and people.
Bullshit. Ever heard of an explanation for the ice ages? Why would the Earth suddenly revert to such a period? The only explanation is the Sun or the Earth's rotation around the galaxy.
So why now are we blaming "global warming" on Man? Give me a solid explanation for the cooling periods and I may believe you on the warming ones.