Can scientists be AGW Skeptics?

In the real world of science not the bullshit world that has been manufactured by the Church of Global Warming, scientists reserve the right to be tentative about any assertion. In fact tentativeness is next to objectivity as one of the two most important scientific principles that any good scientist must covet. So if one disregards all the hype about AGW including the Copenhagen shenanigans and the political blowhards (mostly European but lets throw in Al Gore) and look objectively at the weather in Europe “its bloody cold” as the Brits would say. The satellite picture shows Great Britain covered in a frosty coat, the result of the “Arctic Oscillation”. This is reminiscent of the River Thames frost fairs of yore. Apparently there are other reasons for cooling and warming that the IPCC (UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) hasn’t fully accounted for in its rush to blame human produced CO2. There are these things called oceanic cycles that switch between “warm” (were in) and “cold” (are now in) modes. Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the IPCC has suggested that a large part (up to 50%) of the so-called global warming that the IPCC has noted is due to these oceanic cycles that he says could last 20 to 30 years. Prof. Latif and his colleague, heretics of the AGW Church, don’t believe in the computer models:
“I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.”

Its too bad really, I was ready to throw in the towel and join the Church of Global Warming. Oh well just when I thought the science was settled maybe it's time to be "tentative".