You might have noticed that I quoted the original source on another post, the one the Daily Tech article referred to, and specifically pointed out the caveat the author made at the end.

Nobody serious is suggesting that the 11-year cycle creates serious climate changes. What a lot of researchers seem to be settling on is the idea that there was a strong solar connection to warming data in the first part of the 20th century, but that the data diverges in the last part of the 20th century, showing an increased non-solar input like greenhouse gases. I'm still looking at the studies, but this makes more sense to me than the idea that human-generated greenhouse gases were generating changes like serious glacial melting back in the early 1900s.

Some relevant graphs here. I can't get at all of the original papers without paying for them again, but one of the sources is here.

I don't know what assumptions the models made, but their model fits the data quite well, which is more than a lot of others do.

Keep in mind we are talking ranges of less than 1 degree C in all this discussion. Looking at the natural forcing cycles, it also raises a new question: Where would the climate go if we succeed in shutting off the human-generated CO2?

I stand by previous statements that many of the people above the research level are dealing with this on a political basis, not a scientific one.