On CO2, you ask which it is, cause or effect. It's not hard to grasp the concept that it can act as both a forcing and a feedback. I don't know of a period when high CO2 wasn't eventually followed by warming, or at least an offset of a cooling, but nobody says it's the only influence (short-lived sulfate aerosol is another one). Only that it's the main forcing in the current trend, and a persistent one that threatens to disrupt our nice relatively stable in this interglacial, biosphere.
You're thrashing all over the place on solar, throwing in UV speculation, but your point was that the dermal sensations of the Inuit suggest an overall increase in energy. I maintain that you can't make that assumption - we'll just have to agree to disagree. UV is considered as part of TSI (it accounts for 10%). I haven't seen a study showing that increased UV is responsible for accelerated ice melt, and the claim that extra solar energy plays a stronger role than the amplified greenhouse effect isn't consistent with stratospheric cooling.
On Pinatubo, that one year isn't exactly used as a baseline all by itself. And some of the strongest melting and disintegration has occurred in the last several years, continuing the trend beyond the Pinatubo recovery, and (again) beyond pre-Pinatubo conditions.
Back to peer review, studies are rejected (and the reasons documented) if they're fundamentally flawed. Despite some whining from fossil-funded contrarians whose crap didn't make it into the official literature, I've yet to see anyone prove an international conspiracy to corrupt the scientific process.
On water vapor, higher temperatures mean more can remain uncondensed, even with regionally heavier precipitation events. I don't know where you get the idea that carbonic acid itself acts as a fertilizer, but if memory serves, only a small percentage of the CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid. It's a relatively minor part of the total carbon sink that currently absorbs over 40% of our emissions. We'd already be in a world of trouble if that sink didn't exist.
Regarding a previous point, multi-forcing models (including the latest from NCAR), do project a significant warming even at the low end of the range, and I recall at least two scientists (including Gerald North) stating that they only reproduce observed data when the CO2 increase is included. Claims that "hockey stick" reconstruction omitted "little ice age" and MWP data have been thoroughly refuted, and the reconstruction has been independently verified.
Well, that's enough for me. I'm done spinning my wheels here. Objective readers can do their research (examining sources in the process) and come to their own conclusions. Have fun in denial, and may the strongest science lead to a brighter future.
