The assumption behind AGW is that nature apart from man is in a perfect equilibrium, but that man disturbs that balance. So, even though scientists admit there is no "ideal" or "perfect" temperature or climate, they nonetheless pitch in and agree that any tampering with the natural cycle of things by man is bad.
This assumes or implies two things: first, that nature is designed, so that there is a natural balance that "ought" to be, and second, that man is not an integral part of the natural cycle of things, but, rather, an interloping damage-doer.
This belief is philosophy, not science (and scientists should at least have the decency to point this out). This position actually supports the Christian view that man stands above the rest of creation, but is damaged and flawed in his actions.
But wait a minute. If man is nothing more than an uncreated "thing" that evolution spat out, then blame evolution, or blame nature, not man. But the assumption behind all of this is that man is somehow a free-willed moral being who can control his actions for good or ill.
Sound familiar? Once again we find non-believers, darwinists, and atheists unwittingly supporting the Christian worldview.
I am utterly convinced that the Christian worldview has the broadest explanatory power, greatest internal cohesion (consistency), and best correspondence to reality of all belief systems "out there". As I have explained in other posts, atheism is ultimately illogical and unworkable in practice -- because while many love the freedom from moral accountability it affords, few are willing to live with the logical consequences of materialism -- that we are unintended, undesigned, and without intrinsic worth or destiny.
Even its critics and deniers support the Christian worldview.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.