Okay, so you deny the consensus. Let's start from square one.
Regarding your first sentence, rephrasing your point isn't proof of the original point. You say man-made CO2 is causing a "small warming". Small, to most, has connotations of insignificant - but you don't accept that it IS insignificant. So do you then believe man-made CO2 is causing any variable amount of warming, which is indeed significant? Again, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding your second paragraph; my usage of accelerating is semantically up for interpretation if you wish to be pedantic... By acceleration, I meant to explain that man-made CO2 is actively promoting CO2. Which is true, and something I think we both agree on. This is good.
Regarding your third paragraph; oh boy. By using the word some, you are being very disingenuine to yourself and anyone else who reads your post. "Some" is just ignorance. A better phrasing would be "vast majority, with a few sceptical and very little if ANY deniers with scientific accreditation".
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Again, I must emphasis the burden of proof is ON YOU and you've yet to cite any sources that back your claim. I've cited 5 sources, no to mention that American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society and The Geological Society of America ALL support this claim.
As regular civilians, you and I have not done any methodologically valid investigations into climate change. Can you see how, to follow laymen, that the evidence supporting man's causal effect on climate change is significantly more paramount than you on TSR saying "no"? This is a lot to take in, I understand; take your time replying.
However, if you reply by just dismissing my evidence without providing your own valid sources... then the debate is over. We will never get anywhere with your mindset of just denial and lack of proof.
How can you have the audacity to tell thousands of climate scientists that they are wrong... without proof?