Let's pretend for the moment that you're right, and global warming IS a natural phenomenon. That doesn't immediately indicate that all of the "green" solutions are wrong - except in one respect - and that is if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Except in that scenario, the "green" solutions are good ones, and are actually the least intervention.
I've read of scientists talking of "geoforming", with various proposals, notably aerosols to reflect more light. But universally they're afraid of trying that kind of thing, and want to try the lesser interventions of CO2 reduction first. They consider "active geoforming" to be a last-ditch measure.
Your assertion that "green solutions are wrong" is likely based on the assertion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Most of the scientific community asserts that it is. Since you don't trust them, who are you trusting for your geoforming science, and why the heck should I trust them?
Or try something else... Since you say global warming is part of a natural cycle, then PREDICT! So far the global warming side is doing a decent job of predicting - each of at least the past four years has been the warmest year on record, each surpassing the last. On the global warming side, the prediction is that that will continue for some years, even with intervention.
What does you natural cycle "theory" predict?
Make a prediction, let's TEST.