Unfortunately to even begin to get a grasp of the complexity of climate change entails extensive literature research over many different fields of scientific endeavour. Much of the research published is behind pay firewalls, although generally abstracts are freely available. I would argue that to make a definitve statement that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change is simply not possible at the present time.
Superficially the increase in CO2 makes a logical argument, but it is not a scientifically proved fact. Many scientists argue that it is, but many also argue it is not. Forget whatever the mainstream media or wikipedia may say, and even some of the more commonly read scientific journals are guilty of publishing certain articles and delaying/killing others. Peer review only works when papers are distributed. Just look at the history of medicine and science and see how many original thinkers were at first villified before having a grudging acceptance of their contributions. Science is a perfect example of Darwinism at work-step outside the herd mentality and your career may well die and your funding dry up. When you see a certain agenda being pushed and another being crucified just ask yourself:
Who is the winner from the dominant agenda? What argument is going to make certain people wealthy? The idea that human activities may influence climate has too many moneymaking activities attached to it to let mere science stand in the way.