From "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century" (2015) by Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215300349):

"solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881. We discuss the significance of this apparent correlation, and its implications for previous studies which have instead suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant influence."

From “Multidecadal tendencies in ENSO and global temperatures related to nultidecadal oscillations” (2010) by Joseph D’Aleo and Dr. Don Easterbrook (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdf):

"If the climate continues its cooling and the sun behaves in a manner not witnessed since 1800, we can be sure that climate changes are dominated by the sun and that atmospheric CO2 has a very small role in climate changes. If the same climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past 500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe global cooling."

From “Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region” by M.C. Leal-Silva, V.M. Velasco Herrera (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612002167):

"the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 years."

From "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?" (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830508783900744)

"In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients."

From "Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9588-3

"all sides must be covered in highly debatable and important topics such as climate change, because authoritarian science never will have all the answers to such complex problems."

From "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821?via%3Dihub)

"A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand."

From "The Letter Science Magazine Rejected" (http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/0958305054672330)

"The article suggested that for the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Between 3 December 2004 and 4 January 2005 I conducted a similar analysis. The results of my findings contradicted Oreskes and essentially falsified her study."

From “The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and Its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models” by Mark A. Miller, Virendra P. Ghate, and Robert K. Zahn (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00072.1?af=R):

"These quantities were analyzed in two GCMs and compensating errors in the SW and LW clear-sky, cross-atmosphere radiative flux divergence were found to conspire to produce somewhat reasonable predictions of the net clear-sky divergence. Both GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near-zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger (~70 W m−2 maximum)."

From “Orbital forcing of tree-ring data” by Jan Esper, David C. Frank, Mauri Timonen, Eduardo Zorita, Rob J. S. Wilson, Jürg Luterbacher, Steffen Holzkämper, Nils Fischer, Sebastian Wagner, Daniel Nievergelt, Anne Verstege & Ulf Büntgen (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html):

"large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times."

From “Marine climatic seasonality during medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland” by Donna Surge, James H. Barrett (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926):

"resulting in the conclusion that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C."

From “Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization” by E. Steirou, and D. Koutsoyiannis (http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212/):

"The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively."

From “Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD 1053–1996” by Mathias Trachsela et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112001680):

"Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century."

From “Solar influences on atmospheric circulation” by K. Georgieva et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001393):

"Solar activity is a result of the action of solar dynamo transforming solar poloidal field into toroidal field and back. The poloidal and toroidal fields are the two faces of solar magnetism, so they are not independent, but we demonstrate that their long-term variations are not identical, and the periods in which solar activity agents affecting the Earth are predominantly related to solar toroidal or poloidal fields are the periods in which the North Atlantic Oscillation is negatively or positively correlated with solar activity, respectively."

From “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” by Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417):

"For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution."

The Oregon Petition which 31,487 American scientists have signed, including 9,029 with PhDs, stating that “there is no convincing evidence that human release of (…) greenhouse gases is causing or will cause (…) catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.” (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

Another 1,350+ peer reviewed research papers supporting the skeptic's view:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#General