Seriously, it isn't we have ice cores, and direct records for the last 200 years that show that the periodic changes in planet temperature are nothing like what has been happening for the last hundred years.
That said, I'm going to assume that based on your comment, you aren't actually interested in science or anything beyond talking points provided by others.
If you were actually interested in the science of this you would be able to provide studies that haven't been subsequently refuted, or been demonstrated to not actually compensate for the measured effect of global warming.
Solar cycles have been demonstrated to not explain the current changes in global temperature. The impact is not anywhere near fast enough to match current the last hundred years of change.
Random variance doesn't explain it - models for global warming predict increases in extremes of basically all events. Random variance is random so does not explain any changes with a measurable bias.
Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. 1) they're conspiracy theories, not science; 2) they depend on everyone lying about the temperature over time, except everyone agrees on what the temperatures are.
No hypothesis put forward, matches the core predictive ability of global warming theory: global temperature is increasing, as a result of increased CO2 and other pollutants introduced into the atmosphere by human, and human driven industries. This theory predicts increased global average temperature as long as greenhouse emissions continue, it explains ocean acidification, and it explains increased frequency "extreme" weather.
If you have some alternative hypothesis that matches prior atmospheric behavior over the last 200 years, and can also explain the things that global warming does, I'm all ears.
But I suspect you're just either a troll, or a talking point driven internet commenter.