That sentence was rather poorly worded, as asking if "natural processes" contribute more presupposes that man-made global warming exists.

Of course our activities warm the planet to some degree (perhaps to an immeasurably small degree) but I think the natural processes contribute more than that. I believe global warming is occurring due to seeing (on the internet) how the Arctic ice masses are decreasing and the lowest winter temperatures of my home state in winter seem rather mild nowadays.

Yes

Yes

Yes

I have looked out amongst the smog-filled mornings and have thought to myself, yup, that's all man-made. I doubt that many dinosaur farts could have put that much pollution in the air.

Then a volcano erupts and lights all of those dinosaur farts. That a lot o' pollution.

Then loggers cut down forests (yeah, rain forests too) and we have fewer natural CO₂ scrubbers. Then responsible loggers plant new trees.

Then an oil tanker leaks (gets blown up, rubs against an iceburg) and kills mermaids and ocean-based oxygen-producing plants.

Then someone turns off their computer instead of allowing it to run all night, so less coal needs to be burned, so less mining has to take place, so people are out of jobs, so there is more stress, so people light up a cigarette to calm themselves, which contributes to the smog. And landfills. Those butts gotta go somewhere.

I think global warming is happening, but I'm more confident that some nut-o is going to go all "Fire the nukes!" at all the other countries and start ourselves in a huge fireball of a world war. Then who cares if the earth is a degree or two warmer overall? It'll be all Wall-E all over again.

I blame it on the cows farting and burping...

Ah right. Just like how when my code bugs out it proves that it's working. Bugs are still bugs, even if the code is getting better.

.. more sarcastic post ..
Also how I know my wife is committed to me. Her marrying me is part of a rotation which can be seen by hormones rising. Sex is still sex, even if she's married to me.

6 feet under the shit?

Six feet under

Except that neither "six feet under" or "under the weather" is a metaphor.

Climate change is a better phrase than global warming. Yes, natural processes on the Earth (and in the sun or in space) contribute significantly to climate change. And yes, I think humanity is contributing to the current change in climate.
The reason, mainly, is the rate at which the climate is changing. The rate at which icesheets are melting. It is happening much more quickly than can be attributed to natural causes alone.
I guess part of that belief comes from listening to other scientists working in related fields and seeing movies of glaciers melting.

Of course, a second question then becomes what to do about it. The climate has changed considerably in the past. There is a mass extinction, life on Earth recovers and the cycle continues. It will be no different this time, if it gets that far. The question (for our sake) is whether we'll be among the species to go extinct if it should come to that.

Part of the problem in presenting a field like this to the general public is, first of all, the data is often scarce (because we've only been recording directly for so long) or indirect (tree rings, ice cores, each of which requires intermediate steps to interpret what they say about the climate). Year-to-year variations are huge (larger than any systematic trend, which only shows up in 5-year averages). The general public doesn't "get" a difficult concept like "rate of change", they like to hear "the temperature will increase by so-and-so much", and when they hear that the temperature will increase "so many degrees" they think "well, that's not too bad" because you get larger variations during a single day. People think that a few hundred years (not even a geological blink of an eye) is a long time. There's the climate models, which are still somewhat crude and imprecise and therefore not always reliable. And finally there's the fact that weather systems are chaotic systems and it's hard (not to say impossible) to predict what a small change today will do for the climate on a longer timescale (note the need to upscale "weather" to "climate", which is again not trivial).
Usually it's easier to predict the climate than the weather because the climate is less chaotic, but it is chaotic on some level (non-chaotic systems are never stable because they can't damp out small perturbations) and pushing it out of quasi-equilibrium too hard will trigger a phase where the climate changes rapidly and significantly before stabilising again.
People will tend to rely on our technology and innovation to counter any problems that may arise. But there are things our technology will be powerless to prevent. Natural disasters is an obvious example and I suspect climate change is another. Of course, people argue over whether that just reflects our current technology or whether at some point we'll have technology that will help (I think we won't ever have the kind of technology that can protect us from everything). Even if we did though, it's not obvious what the long-term effect of using such technology would be.

That's before you factor in political pressure that tries to confuse the issue one way or the other.

Were that the case then yes, you'd have a point.
You know, sometimes I'd wish we could split the world up. Let the nay-sayers do to their part whatever the hell they like and let those of us who are a bit more responsible do unto their part what they want, then compare in a few hundred, a few thousand years. See who's laughing then. Unfortunately, we have to share the same world and choices made by a small group of people affect us all.

The efficiency of the Gulf-stream is what matters. I don't know what the leading cause for the current winter is (it may be as simple as a year-to-year fluctuation), but if global temperatures rise the efficiency of the Gulf-stream decreases and Northern Europe gets colder (it'll get more similar to the climate on the other side of the Atlantic). Anyway, as I said, "global warming" is a confusing term.

I don't like when people ignorant of my field (Neuroscience) hold "opinions" about it, so being uninformed of the field of Climatology, I don't hold uninformed opinions about it. If I did wish to become more informed about it, I'd read the literature (scientific papers), and not listen Internet wise men that have "solved it all" or interpret the data myself without knowing what to look for.

Wonder how many of you for/against it have ever read a scientific paper from a reputable journal about the subject? I'll wager the number is rather low.

Oh I agree. I wish all these environmentalists would sit in a corner and leave the rest of us alone. Instead however, the choices made by this small group begin taxes and polices that affect us all.

Hold the press, there's another armageddon theory. This new one uses graphs .

In a hundred years society will look back on this as embarrassing. I can only hope the evangelists find some way to make it sound better and save face. Maybe make it more generic like say, calling it climate change... oh wait.

That's right, if you have to make a choice between saving the world and saving the economy, you save the economy.
Ok, it's not that extreme, but that proposition is still preposterous and summarises everything I dislike about the US's general attitude to this situation. So maybe it'll turn the world doesn't need saving and it's wasted effort. But what if it does need saving? Can we afford to be wrong? Could you look future generations in the eye and say "yeah sorry, we weren't sure and we thought our economy was more important than maybe destroying your future"? I couldn't.

Anyway, pollution and the current pressure on natural resources are beside the point of the discussion as laid out in the original post, but there are other reasons beside climate change why reducing a lot, and soon would be a very good thing to do.