Science is a way of postulating that something may be real given the a available evidence. A true scientist should be ready to change their understanding of “real” when presented with new evidence.
Belief or faith is trusting something is real without evidence and is the antithesis of science.
If perspective changes, we did not have enough data.
The knowledge comes when hard science is applied on this data, e.g math or logic.
Temperature rising is science. Is it natural proces? Well that depends if you choose to believe or not in actual knowledge.
That's true of most of the "hard sciences" like physics and chemistry. Climatology, however, is unfortunately full of beliefs and incredibly lacking when it comes to theorems and facts. Part of that is just due to the inherent difficulty associated with making inferences about climate history using a relatively limited amount of data from modern, accurate instruments. Add to that some extremely biased incentives in the institutions and governments funding climate research, and you're no longer in the same ballpark as the other hard sciences.
I'm not saying it's all wrong or that the climate isn't changing (I think it is to some degree), but the one thing climatology has proven most convincingly over the years is that its prevailing predictions tend to be wrong – and not by an insignificant margin.
One big issue is using the term ”believe”. It is not matter of belief, it is a matter of understanding, wrapping theorems and facts. We need to understand the science. We have already 10 000 gods, so let’s not make science equated to the religion and reduce its power with that.