The point that natural cycles, if they exist (as the Met Office is now agreeing with skeptics on), can both accelerate and stall temperature rises is an excellent one.
The alarmists are now saying "sure temperatures are stable now, but that just means they'll go up in a hurry later on".
That's likely to be correct, but misses the point.
The point is that what we care about is the possibility that warming is being caused by humans AND will be harmful AND that we could do something about it by decreasing our activities. If it turns out that the rapid warming in the 80s and 90s wasn't caused by us then there will be very little that we can do about any future rapid warming anyway, and we'll just have to learn to live with it.
Climate scientists work out all the natural things that they can think of that affect the climate, put them into mathematical models, and then just ASSUME that any temperature rise in excess of that was caused by us, and specifically by our CO2 emissions. This has in the past caused them to think that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial times could cause a temperature increased of 3 degrees or 4 degrees or even in some scary reports 6 degrees.
If you instead assume that there is an approximately 60 year natural cycle that is flattening temperatures now and caused them to rise faster in the 80s and 90s (and decrease in the 50s and 60s), and continue to assume that all the rest of the unaccounted-for change was caused by CO2, what you come up with is that a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial times might cause a 1.5 degree temperature increase.
That's a lot less scary than 4 or 6 degrees. And we've already seen 0.8 C of that.
There is also the possibility that there are more yet longer cycles not yet accounted for in the models. Good temperature records only go back 150 years, but there is considerable anecdotal evidence of an approximately 1000 year cycle that we're in the rising part of.