Why should I not? I'm at a loss to understand why you think you're making a good argument there.
There are far larger changes in insolation over the day and over seasons. Life is obviously less sensitive to these flucuations, than life would be to changes in temperature.
Each argument is symmetrical! There are large fluctuations in temperature over space and time as well! Presuming that one matters and one doesn’t is making an assumption that needs to be proven at minimum, whereas the null hypothesis should be something like “it is not clear what changing the baseline temperature or light levels of an environment will do, but it’s probably bad for the ecosystem”.
The size of the fluctuation in insolation is very much larger than the change in temperature.
One goes from 1000 W/m^2 in noon sun to, what, milliwatts/m^2 from starlight? Many orders of magnitude. Temperature goes from maybe 250K to 320K over the year, maybe, a change of maybe 30%?
There are far larger changes in insolation over the day and over seasons. Life is obviously less sensitive to these flucuations, than life would be to changes in temperature.