Reasons why scientists think global warming is a Natural cause?

There are a few who have the right credentials to call themselves a climate scientist and there are a few who may not have the requisite piece of paper from a University but have extensively studied the climate all the same. The first ones that come to mind are listed below. There's perhaps another 10 or 12 which I haven't listed because they have strong connections to Exxon, Western Fuels and Chevron so their opinions are likely to be somewhat skewed.

I've included a link to each of the respective pages on Wikipedia with the exception of Kulka who doesn't appear to have a page (odd) so I've linked an article with some of his comments. Phil Stott (Geographical Biologist but has studied the climate) believes that the Sun is by far the largest contributor to global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stot... Sally Baliunas (Astronomer) believes that greenhouse gases can not be responsible for increased warming. Accepts the planet is warming, hasn't provided any alternative hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Bali... Bill Gray (Meteorologist) believes that global warming is a hoax and doesn't exist but somewhat contradictory is his claim that warming does exist but is caused by oceanic oscillations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._... George Kulka (Professor of Climatology - retired I think) states that most of the warming is natural and humans only have a small role to play http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822.300-histories-the-ice-age-that-never-was.html Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) cites the argument that CO2 levels have lagged behind temperatures in the past and therefore CO2 isn't a driver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Patterson.

I can but won't because: (1) it would compromise my anonymity, some friends' identities, and personal conversations; but mostly (2) "dispute" is a continuum of "uncertainty" and every natural system contains uncertainty in the form of unexplained variance. The majority of climate scientists support AGW, but that support ranges from 'evidence suggests' to 'damn sure' based on where their particular data have led them - and not all data are equal. Deniers are a different set of people that predominantly believe in a binary solution (reject-accept), whose opinion is biased by an unyielding a prior assumption that the solution is 'reject', and who firmly dispute everything that does not support their belief regardless of what the evidence suggests - up to and including claims of vast global scientific conspiracies and imaginary political organizations.

=== Starbuck -- No, you are not the only one.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.