The fact is, so far as I can determine from those who are experts in this field say, that the overall trend once the ice age reaches its maximum low point is warming until we reach a tipping point in which we go back to north America being encased in ice. The warming and cooling is not constant but consists of a lot of anomalies along the way. We are technically in an ice age now but in the upward warming trend of it and some climatologists suggest we may be overdue for the next really cold spell.
The period of time that humankind has been keeping records of temperatures, ice coverage etc. is so short a time in the overall big picture--barely an eye blink--that we honestly can't know what 'normal' is over a period of 5, 10, 20 thousand years. The best they can do are educated guesses based on what evidence they can extrapolate from tree rings, ice cores, etc. and it is not an exact science.
What we do know is that plant and animal life most prosper during the warmest periods.
But if human kind is affecting the climate, and it is possible that activities of almost 8 billion people on Earth do have some effect, that effect could just as easily be for the common good as could be to its detriment.
That is something I think must be considered in the equation. When ALL the emphasis is on controlling human activity lest some catastrophic effect be imminent, I think we are missing much of the science that should be explored.
And when focusing on only one possibility becomes almost a religion is our present day reality, you have to consider an underlying motive of increasing the power, influence, and/or personal wealth of those promoting it.