So how would you refute the following argument from a hypothetical AGW skeptic who says:

> ok, so the mean contribution from tidal effects is zero. But there are multiple cycles, and we could just happen to be at a place where all the cycles are aligned and contributing to an increase in temperature. So what we've observing now is not about greenhouse gasses at all.

I have a sense of how that could be quickly and resolutely disproved, based upon (1) the relatively short cycles of these planetary events, (2) the small magnitude of these signals compared to huge and unprecedented sudden leap in global temperatures.

But you know the data as an expert. Can you clinch the argument?