Fair enough. And yes, I was wrong with my statement about it being incorrect (which I'll edit).

could someone explain something to me...and are in fact overdue for a cycle of warm.

It's a fairly complicated topic to summarize easily into a single comment here. I'll quote Wikipedia just because it's a nice place where everything is aggregated (and cited for that matter). I would strongly recommend reading the Wiki article on Global warming.

In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities. In 2010 that finding was recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.

So, first, there's really no question among scientists that the current warming is being caused by humans (Wikipedia has an entire article on the scientific discussion of this). Yes, you can find specific examples online that people point to as reasons why global warming isn't an issue (for example, the increase in Antarctic sea ice). But to say that scientists are collectively ignoring facts like that when they come to a conclusion is naive. These are scientists who spend their career studying this. They are way more qualified to make conclusions that an average person looking at results.

As for greenhouse gases, which are commonly mentioned when the topic of global warming comes up:

These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.

It goes on to mention that:

Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm.[93] This is an increase of 90–250% above the concentration in the year 1750.

It's an issue because:

On earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).

\

The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade).

Why it's important to look over such a long period of time. We're talking really small changes over a very long period of time.

There's also an entire article on the attribution of the "recent" warming due to humans.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, it mentions (from the above article):

It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing (i.e., it is inconsistent with being the result of internal variability), and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

and

From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely (>95%)[32] that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750.

To reinforce the credibility of that report:

The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

This is getting long. If you have more questions I'll gladly do my best to try and source an answer. And there's always /r/askscience.