There are non atmospheric carbon sinks, which as you say absorb a percentage of emissions; however, their net effect is identical to a slightly larger atmosphere.  You admit that increasing CO2 concentrations increase temperature and human emissions increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet you suggest that it's solar storms which have increased the temperature.  Why, as a black body increasing earth temperature from incoming radiation is hard, it's  temperature ^ 4  = e which takes a lot of energy for a small increase.<p>Modeling what the net effects are is a complex topic.  Doing a proper cost benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions is hard.  But, we could produce all the energy the US needs from wind and solar, we could even create hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 + water, saying that’s not an option is a false choice.  The real question is how far should we change, at what cost and for what benefit.  I don't know the answers to that question, but I suspect the optimum choice is less costly than what most might while still dramatically altering carbon emissions.<p>PS: The total carbon emissions from all cars driven in the US is about the same as produced from coal fires in China, if you focus on low cost solutions to the global problem there is a lot of low hanging fruit.