Thats not what you did. You listed three impact sources, all of which are largely irrelevant (as a source of uncertainty) to mainstream climate modeling. Then you cried - believe me, its complexity thats made political here for nefarious reasons.
Then you referred to personal (/professional?) status as proof.
My interpretation of your behavior is, that you picked up some reasonings for why climate change can not possibly be human made, from an ideological source, and ended with 'I'm better than you, I dont need any explaination - the only thing I need you to agree on is, that there are model uncertainties (none of which come from the issues you posted) --- at which point I (as in you) fill in uncertainty and doubt.'
From what you posted, you know nothing about the issue at hand.
So what exactly is your expertise?
-
If you need this broken down even more. Because of a lack of actual ability to falsify projections 'into the future', because you only have one system - and it is highly complex. You go not with 'scientific proof' (falsification based), but with scientific consensus (scientific canon), thats based on something akin to 'expert intuition', but averaged out across most of your experts, who create models, that have to predict historical climate activity with a low degree of variance.
Also - because of the amount of complexity you can add to your models, even currently - which exceeds computational modeling capacity, what 'obviously has to be in climate models', and 'by how much (resolution of constants)' - is impacted by scientific decision making. Meaning, opinions. Then in the end, you average all of it.
So the idea, that soemwhere in there you need the concept of a master manipulator, who just leaves out the obviously important stuff (as per your proclamation, earth rotational axis, moon cycles and solar activity), to then get 'politically desired results', makes no sense, based on several principals. The most obvious of which would be - its freaking easy to hide influencing factors somewhere in the margins. (How about at the stage where you segment models just so you can calculate them (in segments) at all?)
The idea, that - "No, no wait for it, its actually the solar cycle, and a meteor 100 lightyears away - someone, found out!" Is far more likely to be storytelling, than 'the specific filter bubbles capacity' to find a smoking gun of actual 'political manipulation'.
The entire thing is based on - "we cant say for sure", "we acknowledge that we cant say for sure", "here is our best estimate, of what will happen", and "here are forty of the estimates averaged".
So in essence, eff of with your story of 'its the solar cycle, thats the smoking gun, I know - because I know complexity'.