This political cartoon claims to sum up the science of climate change, but what it sums up is the politics of climate change debate from a right-wing point of view.
Done properly, science is never "settled." Research of climate change is ongoing and will be for, probably, the foreseeable future, because as new data is analyzed and old data reanalyzed with new tools, new information is revealed.
Climate change was proven to be a real phenomenon over 100 years ago by a researcher named Ellsworth Huntington. He did not prove global warming, nor was that his intent, but his evidence, gathered worldwide, showed that within human history and prehistory climate had changed and forced human migrations, and had other effects. Over the course of the last century many researchers joined that field including me, for a time.
One thing that has become clear is that we are in an interglacial period. As long as there is a continental mass covering one pole, currently Antarctica over the South Pole, there have been recurring ice ages separated by warmer periods. This is the current thinking. The question is "what drives the changes from global ice age to global warming and back again?" The science of tree-ring research, which I was involved with, began with the hypothesis that sunspot cycles appear to coincide with temperature changes and might be a causal factor. To date that causal relationship has not been born out. Yet science is never that narrowly focused, Other data show the possibility of other relationships that are then researched. One line of research is, that since fossil fuel use frees carbon that was trapped in the earth's crust for millions of years, and freed carbon forms carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, a link might be discovered between the advent of the industrial age and subsequent warming. There is now sufficient data to support that link, but proof is another level beyond support. Within the climate research community there is still debate.
Scientists, however, are no longer in control of the public discourse, because of politics, so the scientific finding of a link between human activity and global warming is a "political football". The politicians co-opt whatever they can to bring attention to themselves for the purpose of making a career out of their time in office, and whether they are using "science" or "family values" or "ecological disaster" to help themselves, make no mistake: they care nothing for the truth.
The news media are more than happy to jump in and fan the flames, because that's how they make their living.
The "actual climate change pronouncements by scientists" are, by and large, pronouncements by politicians and news and pundits, all who have a bias for something other than science.
"Science", done correctly, is investigation, and cares little for political results. Scientists, of course, are human and may say things like this cartoon presents, but it is not a falsification of science that there are changes in the conclusions drawn from one study to the next, because scientific discovery is not static. Scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, then found out it isn't. Scientists thought disease was caused by unbalanced bodily "humours", then discovered bacteria and viruses.
Science done correctly is messy, uncertain, changeable. Politicians and news purveyors want absolutes, and that's really not science. Eco-warriors and oil corporations also want "their" truth accepted for opposite reasons, for opposite results.
Meanwhile, one disproven study (one!) connects autism and vaccines and people are sure the science is "settled" in that case. Why trouble with science when a former bikini model knows the truth?