I would like to point out that my original post stated "The article is about solar storms." It is.
I have no problem in accepting the cyclical nature of the Sun's output as this is easily demonstrable and has been meticulously recorded. Most of the cycles are related to orbital perturbations and axial relationships rather than sunspots.
However, the actual energy output level of the Sun hasn't been measured any further back than thirty years because you need to measure it in space. Linking sunspot activity with solar heat output is, then, a pretty tenuous relationship.
I haven't read all of the Landscheidt article as the "Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity" doesn't actually exist.
The second link says "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role...".
the third I may read tomorrow.
I'll withdraw my comment about "not reading" when you withdraw the "sillier" comment. Or, for the moment, you may add the modifying adverb "properly" if it makes you happier.
Keep Up with TechRepublic