I'm sorry, but the idea that the "anthpomorphic cause is very limited" can only be held by people who consider that the duplication of CO2 concentrations in the atmospher matters little.

People who understand the physics of CO2 radiative forcing have shown that it has a very significant effect in capturing more energy. This is shown in many ways:

* experimentally, by filling a chamber with CO2 and quantifying the gas's effects on holding thermal energy

* by models which capture those assumptions within a range of uncertainty and apply them globally. These models have been extremely good at making predictions that are coming true. Glacial melt, like I mentioned, is one of them. The collapse of Antarctic ice shelves is another. The change in distribution of precipitation is another biggie.

* through geological records which have shown that CO2 concentrations correlated extremely well with global average temperature increases

So first, without even getting rigorous, let's apply some common sense:

If you're seeing a pattern through experiments, models, current reality and geological records, it is a retarded idea to dismiss it or to claim that the degree of uncertainty for the knowledge is high. It isn't. You don't get many opportunities in life to see an understanding of physical phenomena which reflects so well across all these factors.

Climatology being an experimental science, if you're claiming that this isn't true then this would dispute many other findings of our current understanding of many other factors, which is something that just isn't happening. The models work pretty well across a range of other phenomena and they're the exact same models. Why don't people then complain about the models' ability to predict seasonal weather, or the year's effects on El Niño, or in modeling ocean currents?

They don't, because once again, to the available knowledge and inherent uncertainty in these models, they work, and they correlate with observed reality far better than anything else we have.

In science people worked based on hypotheses. The null hypothesis that we have reached through scientific consensus is that CO2 is a driver for increased energy absorbtion with consequences across the board.

Let me ask you this: what are the alternative hypotheses? How are they proven?

Some fringe scientists will tell you that temperature records are wrong and that temperatures have not actually been increasing. I'll tell you from the start that it's a feeble-minded, retarded assumption because that's not what physical reality is telling us.

Some people will cite volcanic activity as the main driver for climate change. Well, it turns out that the effects of volcanism reflect in the pretty much the same ways that humans are affecting the atmosphere, except that we're doing it hundreds of times faster.

And really, I have not seen anything close to a physical model that provides not only useful predictions for climate based on other explanatory factors. Worse of all, "denialists" don't even have generally useful models for climate, which would be the main proof that they actually know something the rest of scientists don't.

When a denialist present a global model that has even a fraction of the effectiveness that established models by NOAA and other organizations around the world have, maybe they'll be worth a listen.