The largest influence on climate is the sun's solar radiation output. But try and get a climate scientist to concede this point is virtually impossible.
Wrong. Physics 101, without solar radiation we're just a lump of flozen rock.
Simple physics is brutal. It doesn't argue, it just works. Of course, changing the solar radiation will change temperatures at earth, and we can calculate pretty accurately how much. And yes, this effect has been studied intensively by climate researchers. The observed *variations* in solar radiation are not anywhere large enough to explain the warming. This is indesputable.
Increasing the levels of C02 in the atmosphere is another very simple and brutal piece of physics: The earth-atmosphere radiation budget will change when CO2-levels change. That again will affect the temperatures in the coupled system of earth-atmosphere-ocean, and it should not come as a surprise that you'd expect higher temperatures at the ground, atmosphere and oceans. So far, simple and brutal physics.
Then you want to nail down the details, and things start more complicated: Because atmosphere and ocean are swirling around on a rotating earth, the dynamics involved are pretty complicated. Still, all state of the art climate models will tell you: If you increase CO2-levels you will get AGW. And the observed increase in temperature is consistent with the predicted increase. Increase CO2 lead to AGW.
Europe has spent $200 Billion to mitigate global warming and has achieved nothing in terms of climate change. Many people have profited handsomely on something that cannot be proved selling a conjecture to people who do not know or could even explain why summers are warmer and winters are colder in the Northern Hemisphere. Global dimming and Global Atmospheric Geo engineering doesn't even get a mention in the media.
So far, no one has found a quick fix to counter neither the radiation budget directly, or indirectly, and I don't think we will find a "quick geo-engineering fix" to this problem. You can't argue with physics.
You can, however, argue with all the political hum-drum. Without a doubt, the political and economic landscape around AGW countermeasures, quotas and whatnot is messy, noisy and highly political. Someone will - and probably has - take advantage of this, for personal or political gain.