These cycles are well known. They aren't being naive, just willfully ignorant. Everyone knows 100 or even 1000 years is a blip of noise on the scale of global temperature. That is why records are always framed carefully, when talking of climate fear rationalized market manipulation.

Everyone knows the last ice age just ended around 16K years ago, with a cycle of about 10K years. So if you frame it at 10K years, it looks like 'OMG global warming'...but frame out to 12 - 16K years and it looks like 'oh, normal long term cycle.'

These fraudsters will talk of melting glaciers being the fault of humans, when pushing some pay-to-pollute regulatory capture scheme, like "carbon tax." Yet they know the Earth was mostly without ice, even at its poles, for most of its history. No ice glaciers on Earth is the norm, while the existence of polar glaciers is the temporary exception to the norm, which we call "ice ages." There are well known 100K, 41K, and 21K cycles involved in this forming of and receding of glacial epochs and inter-glacial periods.

We know we are in an oddly cold period of climate, in the perspective of humankind's Holocene period. We've got a pretty reasonable history of glacial melting and freezing, along with knowledge of several layers of natural cycles that cause them; we should expect lots of melting naturally. You can see how these swing wider and wider over time. Right now, we seem right on mark for some continued, non-human, climate warming.

We also understand the Milankovitch cycles, with their contribution to the "100,000-year problem". This is the observed 100K year temperature cycle predicting massive warming right now.

All science points to this being the normal cycle, not human caused. Only by ignoring most data, for a small amount of framed data, can one attribute warming to humans.

They aren't a cabal of manipulators; scientists are humans. They fall for propaganda, group think, and cave to peer pressure. They understand they will lose their job or funding, and be shunned, slandered, and canceled, if they don't follow the crowd.

What's wrong with rejecting science for a political/corporate narrative, if it mostly urges people to be more environmentally conscious? How much could one more "noble lie" really hurt? How could a few misleading Wikipedia notes hurt? Anyone worthy of knowing the detailed truth and intellectually capable of weighing it without coming to incorrect conclusions (ie not mine), will be able to see past them, since the contradicting data is right there.