[DJtex]

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Wow! What backward logic. If 50 years Global Warming coincident with 50-60% rise in CO2 has been wiped out in the last eight years by solar output declining 0.02% logic says that the Sun's output variability is 2,500 times as powerful as CO2 concentrations.

[Army Air Corps]

"...Sun's output variability is 2,500 times as powerful as CO2 concentrations.

Yup. AGW cultists rarely have any concept as to just how flippin' huge an powerful our little star is. When you begin to break it down for them, they cannot believe it. When they learn how much energy the Sun generates in an hour, their eyes go wide.

[az_gila]

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”

Wow! What backward logic. If 50 years Global Warming coincident with 50-60% rise in CO2 has been wiped out in the last eight years by solar output declining 0.02% logic says that the Sun's output variability is 2,500 times as powerful as CO2 concentrations.

---

Now you are confusing the matter with facts and data. /s

[SteamShovel]

If 50 years Global Warming coincident with 50-60% rise in CO2 has been wiped out in the last eight years by solar output declining 0.02% logic says that the Sun's output variability is 2,500 times as powerful as CO2 concentrations.

EXACTLY!

a small percentage of a very large forcing function can be much larger than a large percentage of a relatively small forcing function.

They don't want people to understand that.

In addition, notice how they say CO2 is up 50% from "normal" when there is NO SUCH THING, while solar output is not called normal and the change is implied to be ridiculously small?