In the early 50's statistical evidence began to accumulate pointing to cigarette smoking as the cause of an epidemic of lung cancer in men aged 45+.  There were "pro- cigarette link" scientists and there were a substantial number of "cigarette -link" deniers. 

Then, by the late 50's, lung cancer rates in woman 40+ began to accelerate - about 20 years after cigarette smoking had become popular for woman in North America - just as the "pro" camp had predicted it would.  

Now, I'm not a doctor. I can't follow the chemistry involved in cigarette delivered carcinogen induced mutation.  But I don't smoke - because the "pro-link" case seemed to make more sense to me.  And it seemed pretty obvious to me that there was nothing in it financially for the "pro-link" scientists. 
Similarly, with respect to climate change, you can make your own informed decision.  But do so realizing that AGW is advancing with shocking speed far in excess of the natural processes you reference in your post.