Alan, your links are good and point towards the bigger picture. Thank you.
Too many narrow interests at play to be able to blindly accept AGW.
Good comment from 'Innocentious' -... when people say Natural Variation it is in contrast to Anthropological Global Warming. That is not to say that there are not definitive mechanisms that we are not learning about and peeling away from climate science. To be honest the true sad story is that AGW and it's backers have pretty much hijacked the real science funding that was going about and peeling back the first real layers of understanding that we were developing. that is not to say that it is not still going on only that the true scientists that are studying have to homage to the great AGW story in order to get funding.
As far as the ‘Natural Variation’ goes it is all about peeling back layer upon layer of complexity. Nothing in the climate system does not touch something else but the feedback and responses to any added variable are fluid in nature. Meaning that there are SO MANY VARIABLES to account for. This is one of the reasons why CO2 is a scapegoat rather then anything else. Just because in physics it says CO2 retains heat better than, say nitrogen, does not mean that by introducing CO2 into the atmosphere we will have an overall warmer climate… It also does not mean we will not have a warmer climate… You have to account for Solar radiance, tidal flux, oceanic currents, magnetic resonance, cosmic rays?, Tectonic movement, solar wind, cloud cover, evaporation, solar winds, UHI, and probably a few tens of things we have not learned enough about to ask the correct questions about. So while someone else may be able to answer your question as to what mechanism CAUSED the arctic to get colder I welcome the response, but what we have learned at the very least is the cause and effect of when it does this and the knowledge that it does in fact change.