Biggest issue here was politics and science getting mixed up. They are terrible bedfellows.

They had incentives to hide certain bits of data because it would be difficult to explain to laymen that the little ice age was caused by volcanic and solar variations. The increase in co2 levels and consequently global surface temperatures post industrial revolution was unprecedented.

+ peer review is a necessary but not complete reason to credit or discredit scientific research.

Main point is that it would be a very bad idea to pass sweeping legislation based on the worst case predictions of the alarmists.

Put that into perspective.

The SUN applies something 300 times the energy into the atmosphere, than the worldwide energy consumption

Which is reflected or absorbed.

The co2 released stays in the atmosphere and absorbs more heat. I agree with you on some of the idea that radical legislation could be detrimental - but if done correctly it could funnel money into research and development and consequently create jobs, ect. They're not trying to strong arm people into cutting greenhouses realistically. More like apply incentives to change.

energy use isn't the issue

energy storage is. trapping 300 times the energy in the atmosphere is the issue.

Correct.

I was answering naarleven's point that there's a shitload of fossil fuel being burned - it's tiny compared to the sun's energy.