"So is manmade climate change a hoax? "

No...but there's a lot of nuance in there. That CO2 levels are increasing due to man's activities is almost certainly true. That higher levels of CO2 lead to higher temperatures is also certain.

But how much higher? Are higher temperatures bad? How good are the predictive tools.

"Or a scam? "

No. But there are scammers involved. The science isn't a scam but those exploiting the science to perpetrate the greatest transfer of wealth ever seen are indeed scammers.

"Several datasets of global average satellite temperature measurements have been available since around 1970. They agree pretty well. There’s a close to linear warming trend of 0.14 – 0.19 C degrees/decade"

Actually since 1980. UAH show increases of 0.13c /decade. Just for comparison, HadCRUT show a similar increase in the 40 years up to 1945 when CO2 couldn't have been a factor, meaning it was natural. Nothing is conclusive here, but if it was natural then, how can we dismiss the possibility that its natural now.

But the science is no longer the issue here. Those who've bought into the fiction of Catastrophic Warming no longer care whether the science bears out their fears.
"The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C,". But COP28 still called for a phase-out and compliant governments signed up.

Ottmar Edenhofer, (chair of Working Group 3 of the IPCC), advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”.

There is no longer any path way to reversing this lunacy other than letting it play out until populations come to realise that they've been sold a pig in a poke and demand change. Many nations have rejected the hysteria and look to economic growth. Others will be forced to do likewise....but how far they descend into the climate quagmire before reversing coarse is unknowable.

There has been an expected temperature rise since 1800, the well known
Little Ice Age at the bottom of the cycle.
It is also known as the Maunder Minimum.
As the temperature rose from that low point to today a whole lot of
people including scientists saw the rise in co2 and jumped on that
bandwagon. In fact it is believed that the increase in co2 was caused
by the increase in plant life caused by the higher temperatures.
The earth has greened over the years.
This half cycle was confused with co2 because the industrial age
started about 1800 with steel making etc.
The whole kerfuffle about global warming is based on that error.

There have been 8 known weather cycles, from Egyptian times to today.
The most well known one was the Medieval Warm period 750 to 1400 when
the Vikings settled on Greenland around 900 but had to leave around
1400 because it got too cold for farming.
We can expect the next cold minimum to be around 2600 to 2800.
The peak warming might be around 2300 to 2400.
The cycle length seems to vary because they depend on a number of
cycles, Milanovitch, sun radiation, sunspots, cosmic rays etc etc.

Much better than examining chicken entrails.

If you examine the daily electricity demand you will see that peak
demand is around 5pm to about 9pm EVERY day.
This means that solar has no part to play in any electrical system as
it stops working just as the demand rises, duh !
Also as any sailor knows the wind drops off at sunset.
Ever noticed yachts coming back to their moorings in late afternoon?
Most are on their motors, sails furled.
Anyway the wind might be blowing somewhere.
The calculations on how many wind turbines are needed is not simple.
Wind turbines produce about 35% of their nameplate rated output over
a year. So to start doing the calculation you have to increase the
number by three. However you cannot put the extra two needed for each onto
the same site they have to be on two extra sites.
Still there might be no wind on two of the three sites so those two
have to be duplicated elsewhere. So now you have five sites all with
the same number of turbines.

That is the starting point. In fact the odds are that a number of times
in a year all five or at least three will have no wind.
From what I have read of this problem engineers given the problem of
deciding how many turbines are needed basically give up and guess that
somewhere between five and twelve times the maximum demand must be installed.

Batteries everyone votes for but they do not look for where you will
get the power and when to recharge the batteries.
Turns out you need to duplicate the whole system because the solar &
wind are busy running the grid already.

I wonder why Blackout Bowen and his public servants did not pick up
a hand calculator and work a few things like that out for themselves.
They might have also found out what is involved in installing 22,000
solar panels a day and 90 wind turbines a month in eight years.

If the Earth is warming - please explain the great snow storm currently in the Northern hemisphere by using CO2.