> Betting on sunspots to reverse a century of adding carbon to the atmosphere via fossil fuels is a bit of a long shot bet.

What possible basis could you have for making this judgment? I dearly hope that folks aren't going to accept only the science that agrees with their previous public policy goals. In the face of new evidence, one's opinions are required to change.

For my part, an ice age is more scary to me than a hot age. I can't quite tell if that's just because I personally hate cold weather or if my observation that humans seem to thrive more easily in warmer weather is a fact.

Incidentally, that global warming happens is a sure thing. The magnitude and effects of global warming aren't any more of a sure thing than predicting sun spot activity.

I think what trumps a lot of your awesome points is our efforts in sustainability and forward thinking use of recycling with our products/waste.

wrong. that bottle of organic shampoo from whole food commits about 98% of the sins as a bottle of a nonorganic varity from safeway. both are put in plastic which may or may not be recycled but was certainly made from oil (like all plastics), and was driven to the store in a vehicle that emits CO2, stored in a room kept warm or cool with a device that emits CO2, and then driven back to your house in another vehicle that emits CO2, where it is stored in your closet kept warm or cool by another CO2-emitting device.

and in the end its a toss-up if it even gets recycled, even after you put it in the blue bin. but that process also emits CO2

I agree that current efforts at sustainability are pathetically weak, but I disagree that CO2 emissions are fundamentally the problem. Global warming is an environmentalist boogeyman that makes for good PR, but climate disaster or not we have politically intractable problems with the waste of natural resources. We can always grow more plants to reclaim CO2, but we can't continue to just extract everything and then throw it in a landfill 6 months later.

>Betting on sunspots to reverse a century of adding carbon to the atmosphere via fossil fuels is a bit of a long shot bet.

Based on what? A single sunspot may be many times the size of the earth. There is no question that if the sun "wanted to" it could do drastic things to our climate, dwarfing any mechanism on the earth, man-made or no. Predicting sun spot activity is on the same level of difficulty as predicting the climate, after all: chaotic systems.

I don't question your overal premise; carbon-based global warming isn't going to just "go away." I'm also in favor of embracing 'disruptive' technologies.

But your language comparing sunspots to global warming seems inadequate, somehow.