I know there are decadal and centurial cycles too that we don't understand. Actually, in the latest publication, they note that they don't comprehend all heterogenous causes of those cycles with longer periodicity. But that's different from saying "we" don't understand that human industrial activity is contributing to warming. Among all but auto & gas companies, that's now a recognized scientific fact. I have a friend who's a pretty conservative guy, re-engineered rocket scientist now doing atmospheric stuff, and he says that among all reasonable scientist it's pretty much settled that a lot of recent warming trend, since 1940s, is attributable to human activity. So I don't know who you mean by "we," but my solid Republican scientist friend is who I'm going by. Wishing does not make it so.
Look, you're entitled to believe in human induced global warming if you like. Not too many years ago a lot of scientists though eggs caused high blood cholesterol.
I don't buy your friend's position that "among all reasonable scientist it's pretty much settled that a lot of recent warming trend, since 1940s, is attributable to human activity." If we don't know the climatological baseline, we don't know what "warmer" is. A lot of "reasonable scientists" understand this.
And set aside the Earth for a moment. What's the baseline for the Sun?
Wishful thinking aside, you don't know, nor does your friend, nor do any of his friends.
