Please, quote the few lone "scientists" that say otherwise, so we can share a good laugh together. :yim_rolling_on_the_
But I must warn you: as I said, it's a bit like quoting creationist scientists versus darwinian ones.
And since I'm saying that, you will also notice there's often an ideological link between those creationists and those that deny AGW. Same lobbies. Curious, isn't it?
Like many people have noticed, I'd say you know nothing or almost nothing, yet you're incredibly stubborn.
Why? It's an interesting psychological issue.
Anyway. The real debate within the scientific community is not whether AGW is real or not (IT IS!), but it's rather about the relevance of various climate models and the way they hope to predict how this rise will occur.
AGW is a fact, based on many empirical evidences. Climate models aren't (yet), most of the time, they still remain theories. So the issue is rather how those models integrate facts like the AGW.