Why should I care about the climate when trilobites ruled the Earth? 
What does that have to do with our climate now? We evolved in the last 100,000 years or so. This is the climate we, and all plants and animals we evolved with (and use as food), are used to. What makes you think all of them will be unaffected by climate change?
Actually, most plant life on the planet uses a form of photosynthesis(C3?) which is horribly suited for CO2 below 300PPM, if CO2 had reached 200PPM, they'd be ready to die out. And if you look at that paleo-record, CO2 levels for the earth are also at abnormally low levels. In fact, prior to humans starting to help pump CO2 back into the atmosphere, it was at or very near to the lowest levels ever seen... While coming out of an Ice Age no less.
And what were the factors that made the climate so much hotter in the past? Has the sun insolance become less over the millenniums? Has the orbit changed slightly? Are these factors currently affecting the climate?
I dunno, maybe we need to ask a computer model expert on what their models seem to suggest. That's how climate science works these days right? it's all about what the models tell you. Not what to physical evidence itself says. And ironically enough, the questions you raise are ones most of the AGW advocates completely ignore. Because "the models don't indicate anything currently happening has anything to do with solar activity."
Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.
So what if the climate changed before? We're changing the climate now. Apparently at a faster rate than past climate changes. So what if the sun insolance or the Earth's orbit changed the climate a million years ago? We're concerned with the change that's happening now.
Other rapid shifts are indicated in the paleo record, the challenge there of course is the question about "resolution" as it's very hard to tell the difference between a year event and a century+ long one when you're looking at something that is 500,000+ years in the past.
AGW might be contributing to what we're seeing happening today, but its highly questionable that it is the only thing at play. And given the way that AGW has become dogma for much of the Climate Research Community, you might as well be Galileo telling the Roman Catholic Church that the Earth orbits around the sun, and that the only stellar body that orbits Earth is the moon. Only instead of "Earth" replace it with CO2, and instead of orbits, we're looking at warming. CO2 evidently is supposed to explain it all, even if the paleo-record often contradicts such claims.
We know AGW is definitely contributing, because it is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That alone will increase the heat retained in our climate. Anyone who denies that is an idiot.
The forcings they create are in dispute, and it IS being argued that most of CO2's warming effect has already been felt. IE, for AGW to warm the planet another degree, you're probably not looking at another 100PPM, you're probably looking at closer to 300 instead. But hey, the values the computer modelers have used say that the warming effect is more pronounced than what labs have been able to produce because Earth isn't a lab, so whatever.
So what do your models say is the major contributor to the recent observed increase in global average temperatures? What is the consensus opinion among deniers? How much of the warming is due to other factors like solar insolance? Can you list those other factors? How did your computer models calculate those contributions? Did they take the oceans absorption of heat into account? How about reflections from ice and rocks?
Each one will likely give different answers. Biggest factor in play here is "we don't know some of what we don't know" and we also know several things we know we don't know. The AGW advocates however? Their faith in their models is absolute. Whatever they don't know, doesn't matter, because their models are right. Even if they've demonstrated an amazingly powerful warm-bias over and above anything that has been observed.
The Atlantic was in "a warm cycle" for the past several decades, which could potentially account for significant amounts of the warming observed in the both the Arctic and the Northen Hemisphere in general, it looks to have recently shifted to it's cold phase, so things are likely to start cooling. AGW researchers studying glaciers in Greenland have already been getting some surprises from that, as their precious models have been thrown out of whack again.
The Pacific also appears to moving into a cold phase, so we'll see what happens there. It is rare for those two systems to hit at the same time, as they operate on different intervals.
The Sunspot cycles do appear to have a (weak) relationship with climate on earth, but the AGW models don't factor it in at all. This affects everything from depth of the Troposphere(active sun==deeper Troposphere==more atmospheric insulation==more warming), to stellar winds, to cosmic rays(which may or may not be linked to clouds), which means cloud formation and numerous other things are likely to be impacted in ways we haven't yet begun to understand.
And please tell me you have these things. You, who mock the man-decades of work that has gone into climate research and climate modelling.
I was taught that science is about making a provable hypothesis and verifiable data. So far, Climate Science at it's height of Alarmism has ZERO effectiveness at modeling what has happened to date. Out of 300+ extensive models created since the 1980's they have what? 3 or 4 models that come even close to predicting what we have happening right now? And they're all predicting warmer conditions than we have now,
none are cooler? That indicates to me that the theories/hypothesis those models are operating under are rather poor. If a theory cannot reliably predict what happens, the theory is unreliable, and not good science.
Which means other options should be getting considered, but where are they talking about other options? Oh right, anybody who suggests the models might have problems is to be crucified in the press and denounced loudly and often as a heretic and shunned because they're "distracting" the populace from the imminent crises the (flawed) models predict. (Very reminiscent of Galileo in that regard, the Roman Catholic Church didn't go after him for Religious Heresy,
they went after him for going against prevailing scientific thought of the time.
I hold the AGW scientists in about the same regard as I do a lot of the crackpots out there on the internet. Until they have some models that show some predictive capability, they're just as nutty as the rest. Particularly in the media feeding frenzy of everything weather now validates AGW.
There are people who've dug through paleoclimate records, done reconstructions, looked for patterns and other such things in the data. There are some arguments that can be made there, they're pretty thin at the moment, and only time will bear them out(much like with the Climate models). Like the one I alluded to where it would seem you had multiple cycles of various durations and intensities hit their "warm phase"(or least, no more cooling) at about the same time starting about 1980.
When you stack "warm signal"(Atlantic) on top of "warm signal"(Pacific) on top of "warm signal"(Sunspots), on top (unknown) "warm signal", on top of (poorly understood/unknown) "warm signal", on top of warm signal(AGW) which can all manifest on one particular metric(heat), you can get one heck of "a hockey stick" to happen.
Thing is, most models only fully acknowledge one "warm signal" in the form of AGW. Thing is, some of those "signals" have durations in the centuries/millenia time frame, while others are decadal. And one of the longer duration ones also tends to pack a bit of power behind it. It's been awhile since I looked at that one, but in that particular example, we're almost at the apex but haven't reached it yet, it is only very slightly warmer than where we are now, but the top is pretty flat(after others get mixed in), but it should start dropping in about 10 years. However, due to being essentially flat" from year to year, you're not likely to notice a decline until the 2040's at the earliest, according to that hypothesis.
The Sunspot people are expecting a solar minimum type event, it's just debatable as to how long it will last(Some think it'll be a "Grand Minimum" other think it won't be that severe), but also doubt we're going to be seeing sunspot activity like we had over the past 50 years anytime in the next century or so. Net result: We're going to start cooling, and sooner rather than later. Their consensus is it can lag anywhere from 11 to 13 years. Some are attributing a fair bit of this past winter's events(in particular the Jet Stream) to changes in the Troposphere and expect more of it to come for the next few winters at a minimum.
The least you must have is a computer model that shows that all the rest of the climate research community is wrong. I mean, I know you aren't basing this on some make-believe "theories" by a few contrarians, or "just-so" stories from internet sites. Where is your solid science that you are mocking climate science with? Show me the reasons you believe this, and why your theories and data are better than the scientific consensus.
We wait with bated breath. 
I'll call "Climate Science" a "Science" when it demonstrates it can predict things reliably. As the latest model runs are running
even hotter than the earlier ones, I don't think that's happening soon.
