So your argument is that this is largely a natural cycle and man's influence on climate trends is negligible? Which judging by your response to Chris, you are largely assuming is based on Milankovitch cycles.
That's a claim that is rather easy to disprove as we know what should be happening under a Milankovitch cycle and we're not seeing it.
"Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago."  This isn't happening. We're warming. Not only that but "Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period."  So we're not only warming when we should be cooling, but we're doing so ten times faster than has been recorded in over a hundred Milankovitch cycles.
We are in fact experiencing the exact opposite of what would be expected from a natural cycle - so claims that this is due to the natural cycle hold no weight.
If you're not relying specifically on Milankovitch cycles but rather some other portion of earth's climate cycle you need to make that clear as your whole argument is very vague and lacking in specifics.
To further address some other claims of yours.
Beef production vs Rice
You claim "rice paddies [cultivated wetlands] in combination with natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans emit more methane than do cows.". I'm not sure why you are comparing beef to a combination of rice AND all emissions from 70% of the earth's surface, but the truth is Beef emits more than 20 times more greenhouse gases per kilo than rice.  This lessens when you include the greater calorie per kg for beef, but it's still ten times worse. The total for rice is only higher because although it is far more efficient, there is also far far far more rice grown.
As shown by my source, beef is just about the worst food around from a climate perspective.
You quote a source stating:
"The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land..." and "In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period."
You don't, however, make a larger argument on this point and by your own admission "400 years ago, the land mass that is now USA had 1B acres of forest" and that has declined by hundreds of millions of acres despite recent reversals. In addition, the total amount of deforestation is relevant on a GLOBAL level in terms of how the climate is affected and you make no argument about how that the loss of hundreds of million acres of US trees over the last 400 years is supposed to reverse the massive increase in carbon emissions.
The Scientific Consensus
You claim 'The "scientific community" is as diverse as is "Congress.' This is incorrect in terms of the consensus agreement of climate scientists on climate change.
In fact an overwhelming majority of experts state that humans are causing global warming. Different studies find different amounts (even up to 100% for some) but it tends to be around 97% of experts .
"Sure, but is it reasonable to assume that the age of massive vulcanism is passed? I live within the sure kill zone of the Yellowstone caldera, and it is overdue. So says the science."
The volcano isn't overdue  and even if it was, it wouldn't be a case for the effects of all volcanos suddenly changing by orders of magnitude for the foreseeable future. You are the one that says that nature follows cycles. Why would these natural cycles suddenly change for no reason simply to suit your beliefs?