I think we've collected enough data, I just think it depends on the psychological aspects I noted in the paper I linked to yesterday. Unfortunately, none of the graphics loaded on my browser, I wonder if they read their own material. The evidence for solar influence may well prove valid, but I don't think it invalidates the physics of the greenhouse effect. This is important because much of the debate about climate change, by one side, has been focused on asserting that human activity is not responsible, even if the climate is changing, therefore there is no legitimate reason to endure significant economic upheavals trying to alter human behavior to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations. My quarrel with this is that it assumes any change in human activity, which reduces greenhouse gases, has to incur a net economic loss.
Climate affects everything.
This was found at the George C. Marshall Institue web page. I know nothing about this organization, except they seem to be pretty hard-over that humans have nothing to do with climate change.