Ruth-Ra. The ever living.
>They already put politics in there
If there are models that show human impact on climate based on actual science, which there are, the first step is to acknowledge that fact, and then come to a real determination the extent of the impact.
One side of the argument has presented data, and much of said data is available to download. The other side has managed to target the people behind the claims and claim their models are inaccurate.
I have yet to see evidence that increased pollution and carbon does NOT cause an uptick in temperatures; knowing what we know about carbon's absorption of infrared light from the sun. I also have seen very little in the way of an acknowledgement of this scientific fact in regards to quantifiable impact on a global scale from the other side of the argument.
If you want to make a difference, take the job, and use your class to prove what you seem to already know about human impact. Yiu might find the truth in the process. As of right now, all you are going to get is political opinions, not scientific claims.
Go back and use the ice core data. Then analyze recorded temp data. Somewhere in there, you have to figure out how particulates, sunlight, and water interact with sunlight, and how that affects surface temps, and why do oceans release carbon after things warm up a bit.
Good luck!