// Is it that you are afraid to contemplate that you were conned into a view point and are now too entrenched, even smitten, with it to admit it even to yourself?//
No, it's not. I can guarantee you that I've already had the experience of what I say and do being shown to be wrong by other scientists, and it's not pleasant, believe me. But it was a useful lesson all the same.
I've already debunked birdie's erroneous data on temperatures and solar intensity; I've provided a well-referenced source discussing the history of Climate Science and the understanding of the role, and I've invited you to read that, and the sources therein. As far as I'm concerned, that debunks your case to my satisfaction. It *does* matter that one of the websites you cited is filled with garbage -- it's a good rule of thumb that people who are incapable of judging good science in one area are equally incapable of judging it anywhere else. And, just to be clear, that source isn't "'wrong' or contentious", it's just plain wrong. If you can't even appreciate that then what hope have I of persuading you of any of the other myriad mistakes therein?