You don't think scientists are aware of these? You don't think they're already tracking solar cycles and the like?

For example, see this graph:

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1896/

from this NASA article:

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes

showing how solar input does not explain climate change.

Solar cycles indirectly affect cloud cover not by variations in irradiance but by increases in cosmic rays from reduction in solar magnetic shield.

Some call this the Svensmark effect, after the Danish scientist who proved this influence in cloud chamber experiment from 2017 (https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSol...)

Finally, even the IPCC has acknowledged this and are in the process of altering their CMIP model for 2021, CMIP6, to include stronger solar forcing: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/

Climate science is not settled.

No science really ever is.

The problem you run into, though, is that people who don't understand science confuse "we're continuing to refine our knowledge" with "we were completely and totally incorrect".

Discovering clouds play more of a role than expected is useful information, but it's a far cry from shaking the consensus on climate change as a whole.

We should not expect their first iteration to accurately model clouds, but at least they are factoring it in now. How much did consensus override the concerns about cloud cover during the formation of climate models over the last few decades? Consensus is just a fancy word for groupthink.

We should be asking how much more accurate do our models need to be in order to predict future climate?

There are cycles such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation that we still don't really know how to model with a high degree of accuracy. The AMO has dramatic effects on climate. So does the PDO.

We don't know how volcanic activity is going to play out over the 21st century.

We don't know how much cosmic ray flux will increase if we enter a prolonged solar minimum cycle like the Maunder Minimum.

There are a ton of factors that influence climate that our models don't account for.

https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/

> We compare the climatic effects of the CMIP6 solar forcing dataset to its CMIP5 predecessor by using time-slice experiments of two chemistry–climate models and a reference radiative transfer model... This solar-cycle response is slightly larger, but not statistically significantly different from that for the CMIP5 forcing dataset.

We may not know the exact values of cosmic ray, volcanic, etc. inputs into the systems, but we can make reasonable conclusions about their high and low end values and the likely impacts that result. A quick Googling will reveal plenty of research on (and mentions in IPCC reports) the things you assert are being ignored.

Eventually people tire of living in Groundhog Day and go through the same thing over and over again and they just click the downvote button and move on.

I don't mean suggest that you/we have no ability to look over experienced shoulders to cast judgement on their works, but to speak as them without having their full experience seems problematic.

Arctic sea ice has a third of the volume it had when I was young, smaller than at any point we've ever measured, can reconstruct from ships logs, or estimate from ice cores. You'd think that kind of absurd level of change would give some of these people pause, but it doesn't.

1. Getting clouds right is extremely important for the climate models. 2. We still do not know how to get clouds right.

Predicting weather is like predicting if the stock market will go up or down tomorrow. We can't, really. Like climate, though, we can predict with decent accuracy what it'll do over years.