You are apparently not aware that Phil comprehensively addressed your points and debunked them here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

many other observations also show that the perceived warming is not just limited to Earth, but may be solar system wide. If so, the cause of Earths
warming is due to the sun, and not solely human etiology.

Many scientists with little or no apparent interest in politics question the extent to which humans are contributing to global warming, and few would suggest that Al Gore’s (for instance) interest in AGW purely academic.

Don’t let your disdain for the politics or tactics of one party blind you to similar limitations and bias in the arguments of the other.

You would appear to benefit from spending a little more time over at climateaudit.org or wattsupwiththat.com.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m all for cleaner air, land, and water. Who wouldn’t be. But the focus on the elimination of carbon, apparently to the exclusion of all else, has resulted in a number of knee-jerk reactions that may do more harm than good.

Incandescent light bulbs are to be banned, in favour of flourescent bulbs that are more expensive, appear (to me) to be more complicated to manufacture, require more materials to manufacture, and contain more dangerous materials.

Perfectly good food is being turned into ethanol. Certainly burning ethanol produces less carbon than petroleum products, but can produce more nitrogen oxides, which are more hazzardous to one’s health,and possibly a more effective greenhouse gas. When we include the effects on the land, fertilizers, production energy, etc., the overall environmental improvement becomes negligible or negative. Especially when you burn down half the rainforest to grow it to boot.

Cap and trade systems don’t appear to do anything to me; you’re not producing less carbon, just shuffling around who has to pay for it. The big producers get to deduct the costs as expenses, and anything they can’t write off just gets passed to the consumer.

We’re confused and frustrated. And too many times, we’ve seen human interference with the best of intentions turn out badly. People want to move the polar bears to Antarctica? Because introducing a predator to a delicate ecosystem won’t screw anything up…

Phil, your skills at explaining scientific concepts to the rest of us are needed here. You have better access to and understanding of the studies. Please, put on your skeptic hat, and write us some articles covering both sides of the story. Teach us and convince us that the information that’s appearing now that disputes the AGW trend is flawed or faulty.

Oh I get it! He is better than everyone else. Everyone else must hold to his ideas, but he can’t be bothered to exercise them. You lead by example. Do as I say not as I do never works.