We heard the same sort of claims made about climate 'science'. We were told that 'the science was settled'. Then it turns out that it actually wasn't settled at all. There was much to be doubtful about. The accuracy of measurement techniques became doubted. Questionable assumptions were made. Data had to be 'adjusted' to fit models. All in all, it left a bad taste in the mouths of people who strive to apply the scientific method rigorously and properly.
Anthropic climate change is very much "settled", except in the minds of conservative conspiracy theorists who's opinions don't count towards "the scientific consensus" (Principally because they are wrong).
Where was the data "adjusted". Time and time again when these claims where made, when people look into it, the evidence disapears. And "the measurements" are the same.
The whole "urban heat island" thing was unscientific nonsense thats been debunked time and time again. And that whole "hide the decline" nonsense was a specific case where a known deviation from observations regarding arctic tree ring samples in the 50s (Likely from nuclear testing pounding the trees in the area with radiation) was removed from a dataset to make the data *MORE* accurate.
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
As for dating, we're talking Thorium/Uranium dating here, which is very robust to the time span we're refering to with an accuracy to within 1% (Much better than the 1std-deviation of carbon).
All of these figures fall out the apriori calculations that derive from fundamental physics and observation.
Much like modern climate modelling, actually.