For the majority of the earths history, the poles have had no ice on them. Their current existence is a holdover from our last ice-age.
Wouldn't it be rational to conclude that earth's temperatures are meandering back to its natural state?
Perhaps, but it is a strange coïncidence then that they've been going up since the Industrial Revolution, which also happens to be when humans started releasing a whole bunch of carbon (a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.
It took a while for us to develop the science of climatology and then start noticing natural climatic cycles as well as then noticing anthropomorphic climate change (ACC):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology
Natural cyclic oscillations are known and have been taken into account:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillat...
The possibility of being wrong is there, but here's the thing: if we're wrong about ACC being real, then the worse that will happen is that we move towards more efficient and renewal infrastructure (which isn't a bad thing in itself). If we're right about ACC being real, and do something about it, then we (may) save human civilization.
There's not much long-term downside to assuming ACC is real and doing something about it.
But that's not the "worse that will happen". Go tell a starving 3rd world family that their $300 per month salary will now only buy $200 because you decided its a "risk worth taking".
* https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/news/information/information-d...
* http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/07/how-a-carbon-tax...
So, no. It isn't rational. It is, at best, distractions. And, honestly, folks that peddle these sorts of arguments don't exactly have a history of good faith debates.