First of all, where is he getting this: This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-sourced industrial-based green house gases.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Methane emissions briefly hit a plateau, but CO2 is constantly rising. He makes this point three times; no footnotes indicate his source. He cites Figure V, which is unreadable and unsourced.
2. Curiously, NASA and the Russian Observatory both report that total solar radiation now has peaked, and all these cycles may be simultaneously in decline.
Total solar irradiance (the output of the Sun) has not shown a significant change for the past 30-50 years. Willson's result is tenuous and disputable. But it is not clear if this means solar output or incident solar radiation. If he's talking Milankovitch cycles, you don't see measurable changes from them in a decade.
3. About 500 years after the Medieval period, another surge of greenhouse gasses initiated the Renaissance, which was followed by an unexplained "Little Ice Age" from about 1600 to about 1750. (This was coincident with the Maunder Solar Radiation Minimum)
Why does he (twice) say the Little Ice Age was unexplained and yet cites the Maunder Minimum? Sloppy. Wat it solar-forced or not?
4. Then, in 1000 A.D., a fourth surge of carbon dioxide accompanied the Medieval Warming Period, during which much of the ice and snow on Greenland melted; for the following 200 years the Danes farmed Greenland.
There's no indication from any ice cores of a significant rise in CO2 around 1000 AD. 
Surge? What surge?
5. NASA data indicate that the climate on Mars is the warmest in decades, the planet's polar ice cap is shrinking, the ice in lower latitudes has disappeared, and a Martian ice age may be terminating. (15) This phenomenon appears to involve solar radiation, which has been increasing for the last 100 years.
Wrong (as I've noted numerous times before). See point 1 in my profile. It does not involve solar radiation, and the simplest way to note that is if it did, Earth would be subjected to considerably greater effects, BECAUSE WE'RE CLOSER TO THE SUN. (I believe the notable Freeper AFPhys pointed this out in a different thread -- and if the Sun was forcing changes on Jupiter or Triton, human civilization would be at an end, because the changes on Earth would be unsurvivable.)
And that's just a start.
Probably the main reason that I've drastically curtailed my activities on this subject here (other than my drastically changed schedule) is the amount of -- drivel -- like this that is purported to be useful. It seems like any T, D, or H with a science degree thinks they can string together a hodgepodge of stuff and pawn it off on some conservative media source that laps it up like a dog on vomit. Much like the "Deniers" series Lawrence Salomon wrote. If we conservatives are supposed to be the reasonable knowledgeables, then junk like this should not see the light of day.
agere_contra: See point 5 of my profile, especially note reference 10. The warming of the oceans during a glacial/interglacial transition can only account for, directly -- about 20% of the total atmospheric CO2 increase. The remainder is probably due to alteration of the oceanic circulation which increases deep-sea ventilation rates. Not the same effect as simple warming.
I will now slink back into my hole.
