On the warming issue, in my somewhat informed opinion (BA in Social Sciences, currently teaching Geography) I believe the side that says it's more likely just part of the normal long-term cycles of the earth's climactic changes. There's definite geological evidence that shows the earth has gone through severe changes in overall temerature, both hot and cold, in the past. How can we assume that this cycle of warming is credited only to human activity?
Maybe we're contributing to it, or bringing it on more quickly, but I don't think we're to blame.
So you are a layperson with a fair understanding of science and its methods. A very significant majority of the experts (climate scientists as opposed to us laypersons) are convinced that global climate change is occuring, and that the activities of humans are a major cause. You are siding with a very small minority of the experts. What exactly has convinced you that the minority are correct? Which minority scientist has presented a case that you find compelling, and in what ways is it materially more compelling than the best cases of the majority.
I ask, because often when people refuse to accept a scientific consensus, the reasoning is emotional. Looking back to my earlier example, people in the middle of the last century were often happy to accept the idea that maybe smoking didn't cause cancer because they were smokers and did not wish to confront their own risk and mortality.
If you cannot point to very specific reasons that you reject the majority scientific position on global climate change even though you are not an expert, you may wish to confront your underlying motivations.