I concede that I made a big assumption regarding the amount of energy received during glaciation periods. I have looked but there doesn't seem to be any readily available articles to support my position. However this is the flow of my logic. Right now we are at the minimum of the ellipse. Assuming the distance from the sun at perihelion remains fairly constant the aphelion should be approaching the same distance currently - in other words approaching a circle. Unfortunately I don't have enough information to say what the total differences would be without knowing the precise shape of the two states bearing in mind that radiation varies inversely with the square of the distance. In other words the further the aphelion is the amount of radiation received varies exponentially. The last ice age had an average temperature 12 degrees F (5.5 C) less than now. Right now the global average temperature is roughly (slightly less) 60 F (15.5 C). This still is around a 20 percent difference. I know that this is apples and oranges but I am at best dealing with guesstimates.

"All life on earth has adapted to every point in those cycles(including us humans)." Cycles do not last long enough for adaptations to occur. That is why we are having a major die off right now. Coincidentally we have die offs every few thousand years. However other animals tend to fill the niches left by others.

"But the cycles obviously don't continue." There is no evidence the cycle isn't continuing.

"CO₂-levels are higher than during the last 400000 years and probably more." Let us assume that CO₂-levels are the significant factor in global warming.

During the ice age the CO₂-level was roughly 190 and rose to almost 290 (up until 1995). This resulted in a twelve degree change in the average temperature. Subsequently the CO₂-level has almost increased another 100 parts to almost 390. Up until 1995 the increase in CO₂ is consistent with the previous cycles. As noted before the difference between the temperatures during the last glacial and now is about 12 degrees. We have not seen a 12 degree average increase in temperature in the last twenty years. This questions the direction of causality in the correlation between temperature and CO₂-level.

"My theory about the little ice is that it is the drop in temperature, but high CO₂ concentrations reversed the slow cooling and brought it up to a warming period."

Just to add something to your thoughts. If the little ice age (Maunder Minimum) was reversed by high CO₂ concentrations then the Dalton Minimum would not have precipitated the 1800s temperature downturn:

"But obviously we can't control it when countries like the USA, one of the main producer of CO₂, completely deny that humanity can affect climate in any way." I think the majority of people believe that humanity can affect the climate but there are a few individuals (especially politicians and coal mine owners) deny it but not necessarily because of belief but because of economic reasons. My contention isn't whether it is what humans are doing, but "what if" it isn't what humans are doing. I have a little statistic which may or may not illustrate my thoughts. Since 1970 the rate of melanoma has increased per capita by 3000 percent. What has changed since then? Increased cosmic ray activity. Diminishment of the ozone Layer. People are spending less time outside. People are wearing more sunscreen. Focusing on only one of those factors could cause one to misinterpret what is really going on.