I'm sure it will convince those of you so worried about that <.2% intensity fluctuation by tacking on a few more decimals to the measurement."

Keep in mind that .2% of 1400 watts per sq meter is
2.8 watts per sq meter. A Sun increasing by 2.8 w/m2 or decreasing of 2.8 w/m2 in it's intensity, utterly dwarfs any and all governmental scheme to affect the planetary climate.

In terms of trillions of dollars to be used by govt to affect climate, an actual difference of just .01% in solar intensity could easily amount to more dollars than current US govt bailout of banks [and everything else].

"So, when this goes operational and shows exactly what has been shown for the last 3 decades, is that going to convince you guys?"

What is reportedly indicated is that the solar intensity fluctuation could have caused 25% of the recorded warming of the 20th Century.

That is more than I would have thought it could be.

Perhaps with better measurement it will shown it is actually closer to 20% of the warming or I guess it's possible as much as 30%.

Btw, mostly, when I have discussed the difference in solar radiation, I was talking about the yearly change due to Earth's orbital distance, and less to do with actual changes with the sun's output.
And this is significant when one is interested in climate involving centuries or thousands years. Or is part of the explanation of why we are in the current warming period- which began over 10,000 years ago.

Wiki:
"The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m²), though this fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1,412 W/m² in early January to 1,321 W/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight