This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.
Then I thought the article goes on to say:
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
I would therefore ask you to get your facts straight when you are quoting what the global warming crowd is saying.
He's referring to the current warming trend, which began in the mid-70s.
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
I don't know how he assesses the Maunder Minimum.
Are You a Global Warming Skeptic - Part IV
"When climatologists run the fingerprinting analysis for different historical epochs, they find that temperature fluctuations prior to the Industrial Revolution were driven primarily by solar and volcanic forcings. In the early 20th century, natural and anthropogenic forcings seem to contribute equally. From midcentury onwards, greenhouse gases rule."
Now, there is one group at UCAR trying to downplay the early 20th century solar influence, but they haven't reached the level of full acceptance. The next IPCC report may be very interesting on this topic.