But I'm an atheist, so how does that apply?

Climate change is real. Man making it, is a religion.

Completely agree with the part in red.

The part in blue - This is the problem when science gets political. All sides try to 'win' and the real science is often ignored. Made worse by the media getting ahold of the most extreme scenarios as that makes more interesting news.

So how many links in how many threads do I have to go through before you address some of it? I gave links to papers in the last thread..did you read any of them?

No seriously, answer, did you read ANY of those papers in the last thread? If not why should I go dig them up again?

Your entire deal here is to plug your ears and refuse to hear, I've linked numerous papers numerous times on this site in threads you've been part of, but here you are again asking for more....why should I waste my time if you're just going to ignore it and plug your ears when I do link it?

The problem is you don't want to find what is true - you want to find the answer you want.

You mentioned the last thread in this one, so here. That is my link. Go back to that page and read the 800+ page paper (fully sourced/cited) I linked to in that thread. When you stop being lazy about the issue and start reading for yourself rather than demand demand and plug ears when confronted...when you do that bare minimum of intellectual curiosity, then you can demand I link something more than the thousands of pages I've already linked.

Cool, so im going through your links from your thread.

http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf - 

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:

"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Supporter of tobacco companies, privatization of public services and deregulation of health care insurance.

Yeah, NASA and NOAA disagree with your caps locked bit:

Source

...

“It’s been as dead as a doornail,” David Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said a couple of months ago.

The Sun perked up in June and July, with a sizeable clump of 20 sunspots earlier this month.

Now it is blank again, consistent with expectations that this solar cycle will be smaller and calmer, and the maximum of activity, expected to arrive in May 2013 will not be all that maximum.

For operators of satellites and power grids, that is good news. The same roiling magnetic fields that generate sunspot blotches also accelerate a devastating rain of particles that can overload and wreck electronic equipment in orbit or on Earth.

A panel of 12 scientists assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now predicts that the May 2013 peak will average 90 sunspots during that month. That would make it the weakest solar maximum since 1928, which peaked at 78 sunspots. During an average solar maximum, the Sun is covered with an average of 120 sunspots.

...

Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible, Dr. Hathaway said. (The minimums are named after scientists who helped identify them: Edward W. Maunder and John Dalton.)

Follow the link above to read in full.

Solar Cycles are something I've been reading up on lately and it is kind of a guessing game when it comes to predicting future cycles with any accuracy.  However, once they get going on a path, they seem to follow a pretty regular pattern throughout their cycle. Additionally there appear to be multi-cycle patterns as well - but with the usual potential for spikes and variance these are much harder to identify in any statisitically meaningful way.