Bzzzzzzt. As expected, you failed hard at understanding Occam's Razor.
Occam's says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED DATA is most likely to be correct.
Among several other things, your cult's "it's a natural cycle!" explanation fails to explain:
-- the lack of any observable natural cause for this "natural cycle".
-- the observation of CO2 increasinglyl blocking outward IR flux.
Your theory does not explain the observed data, so Occam's doesn't apply. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data, hence Occam's supports it.
Even you know by now what a lying sack you are, but you don't care. You've sworn allegiance to your liars' cult, and hating liberals is now the only thing you care about. You're a hate-addict, so you'll justify anything that gets you your hate-fix.
Occam's Razor applies in all things when there is no way to test the scientific theory. We have had satellite imaging for 33 years, not even a eyelash blink in the whole of the history of Earth. No honorable scientist I know would conclude that observing 33 years of satellite images or measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures proves a single thing re climate outside of those 33 years.
We have been using weather balloons and measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa for a little over a half century, still too short a period for any scientific conclusion outside of those years. Reliable temperature records on Earth have been kept for a little over 150 years. The only way we have to assess the paleontological record is via fossils and ice core samples and any conclusions drawn from that are based on very large blocks of time. And with no way to test it, scientists don't KNOW for sure what caused major climate change back then. The best they can do is conclude that it was due to sun spot activity, which we cannot control, or impact from large meteorites, or routine natural occurrences due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, seismic activity etc.
We can't build a dozen more Earths to test hypothesis of unusual influences that might affect this one.
More than a few scientists who have studied this conclude that man manipulated changes in water vapor due to release of steam, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc. is a far more likely to affect the immediate climate than minute changes in CO2. But suggestions that farming and irrigation be ended wouldn't be too popular would it? And there aren't mega billions and trillions to be made suggesting that as is the case with those promoting the CO2 theory.
Honest science has to be something more than politically driven or based on peer review when the peers are the friends, associates, and colleagues of those producing the theories. Remember anybody with just a little bit of knowledge and a computer can produce a pretty graph or chart that will show just about any dang thing they want to show.
And the gullible will just eat that up no questions asked. Makes it really easy to manipulate the great unwashed out there when there is incentive to do that.
You gotta love it. And if our pro-AGW group here has the nerve to read that CIA report, they will note all the impressive scientific groups and studies that supported the theory that the current warm, beneficial climate of the mid 20th Century was reverting to the famine-producing cold typical of recent earlier centuries. That CIA report was dated 1974.
