There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.
So Prof Lockwood says that there was a detectable influence caused by an "unknown mechanism" - and then dismisses the possibility of this "unknown mechanism" from the debate on current climate change?
How does he know this mechanism - which he doesn't know about - isn't having an unknown effect now?
And the man calls himself a scientist? Sounds more like a crystal ball gazer.
Even his claim that TSI has declined since 1985 conflicts with the data provided by the NGDC NOAA data - which shows an upward linear trend as the chart in the picture demonstrates.