That's called the "wishful thinking" fallacy, to which you cling to confirm your previous "investment." If we'd look at your sources of the apparent "conflicting" data, we'd be able to see that they are intentionally biased, fabricated, cherry picked or whatever. But I would be surprised that you accept that fact, on average it doesn't function that way psychologically. Which is how humans work, but not a scientific argument.
Anyway, the natural processes, unless cataclysmic, don't make such rapid changes that we experience now. The speed of the change is orders of magnitude faster now than the non-cataclysmic natural ones. It is really going to be worse than most can even imagine. Our children or grandchildren are going to hate us for not doing enough. The politicians and lobbyists who only see their own benefit will be dead and won't care.
To compare with the "good old times": the study of human DNA shows that 70000 years ago, only 2000 humans survived one extinction event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm
And then there was no civilization infrastructure to fail, just the hunter-gatherers, ready to move.
The lowest one is "if we soon stop using the fossil fuels completely" which is not going to happen.
And to those who don't believe:
It is caused by humans: see the energy used in the last 200 years:
https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-ene...
And see what it means that the "climate changed before":
https://xkcd.com/1732/
The principle the warming works is the same why you wear a coat in the winter: the coat keeps the surface temperature of your body warmer, even if the coat itself doesn't produce a new heat. A thick coat keeps you warmer than a thin one. More CO2 does the same to the Earth surface. Without the greenhouse gases the average Earth temperature would be 0°F (or -18°C) and it is 59°F (15°C). And "a few degrees more" is really a lot and awfully fast, see the xkcd drawing again.