Since the solar cycle has come up, I'll add a few things about it. Yes, the energy output of the sun varies on several time scales. Since the sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth, those changes can and do have an effect on the planet. The assertion, however, that changes in the solar cycle eliminate greenhouse gases as a cause of 'global warming' (more on the quotes later) is not justified.
On first glance at the plots above, I immediately took issue with the lag in time of the solar signal compared to the temperature signal. A cause must precede an effect. Moreover it is clear in the plots that the averaging in time of the temperature data is not the same as the averaging of the solar cycle data. This makes conclusions drawn from the graphs without further explanation very suspect.
The report cited about solar cycles brings up another point which has already be touched upon. The source of any report must be considered when judging the report. I know nothing of the Marshall Institute beyond what was stated above, but there is a strong likely hood that research published by this institute has not undergone the rigorous peer review process that characterizes scientific publications. While the peer review process is not perfect (eg. S.Korean cloning paper in Nature, or maybe it was Science), it is quite good. My caution to everyone is to make sure that you get your information from an appropriate source and consider any bias of that source.
Why did I put 'global warming' in quotes? The term is an unfortunate misnomer. 'Climate change' is much better. While the mean temperature of the Earth may increase (what kind of average are we referring to anyway? Annual, spatial?) Some regions will be colder (eg. Western Europe), some wetter, some dryer, some warmer.
One other thing...some one pointed out that the melting of the Arctic ice sheet wouldn't have an effect on sea level. That is reasonably accurate. However, the change in salinity in the North Atlantic resulting from that melting has the potential to disrupt deep water formation. The result changes in the deep thermohaline (density-driven) circulation of the world ocean could be quite dramatic. Notably, this oceanic 'conveyor belt' is largely responsible for sequestering atmospheric CO_2 (from volcanoes, SUV's and humans who keep on exhaling) in the deep ocean, slowing the rise in levels of greenhouse gases. The entire system is a delicate balance, and the system is nonlinear, meaning it has multiple equilibrium states and the potential to rapidly shift between them. The evidence is certainly mounting that we humans have the power to disrupt that balance.
For those who trust the Earth to fix itself, you're in luck. A number models I've seen suggest that if we really screw things up, the Earth can return to an equilibrium state (not necessarily the one we enjoy now) in something on the order of a few hundred to thousand years. So for those planning to be around in the year 3000, I'd love to know how things turn out. Humans are kind of wimpy when it comes to dealing with nature at its worst, so maybe the **** would be a better source to rely on for that info. Personally, I'll keep hoping that we come to our collective senses and lessen our impact on the planet.
