If you go back any earlier than the last iceage isn't that kinda silly?

Mr. Bailo, did you even read the article you just quoted there?

Of course the Earth has been warmer in the past--as the article you cited states,
Previous drilling has showed that ice sheets were quite dynamic, collapsing and reforming in line with the Earth's Milankovitch cycles. These are small "wobbles" in the Earth's orbit that are known to happen roughly every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years.

It goes on to comment,
But said Dr Naish, "during all those natural cycles, carbon dioxide never got above 300 parts per million. So in the last 200 years, we've had this geologically unprecedented increase in CO2 - it's 30% higher than it has been over the last several million years and it's occurred at a rate we've never seen geologically."
...
Dr Naish muses: "If they collapsed in the past without the present level of CO2 and the Earth was two to three degrees warmer, what's going to happen with the doubling of CO2 and potentially much higher temperatures?"

Meowse,

It may be that the context of the remark by Dr. Naish would qualify the meaning implied by his statement that you've quoted, but to simply imply categorically that contemporary atmospheric CO2 levels are at a level that have never "occurred at a rate we've seen geologically" (emphasis is mine) is incorrect; for, in fact, atmospheric C02 levels have been much, much higher (above 2000ppm).  Of course, it's probably not very reassuring that those levels were associated with a mass extinction.  It would be more correct to say that current C02 levels were not exceeded during the Pleistocene, which seems to be what Dr. Naish meant.

It is also important to emphasize, I believe, that asserting that climate has varied greatly without anthropogenic forcing should in no way be taken to obfuscate the likely significant consequence of such change now.