The trouble with tying climate science to policy

Some (not all) solar physicists are predicting a "solar lull," resulting in "a protracted downturn in the flow of [solar] energy to the Earth." Such a lull might produce slower accelerating GHG-forced warming, as less solar energy is refracted as IR radiation and trapped by the atmosphere. DotEarth has a good discussion of this still controversial decision, but I'd like to say two probably overly rudimentary things about it.

One, and this is probably excessively speculative, but I expect many climate activists would lament such a "solar lull," as their cause relies on sustained, notable, and predictable warming to advance a political message of whatever stripe (behavioral/lifestyle changes, climate treaties and government action, technological diffusion, etc.). This is silly. Relying on the coming apocalypse to advance your political action, and then lamenting when the apocalypse doesn't come, is actually a little shameful.

Two, even if I'm imagining the subset of climate activists who gleefully await cataclysmic climate events so that they can shout "I told you so!" to the deniers, there are still those who remain resistant to the idea of addressing the climate/energy problem. To them, decarbonization is directly tied to climate change (and not, or at least less so, to national security, economic growth, and political stability). Tying climate science and a political agenda together so closely works in such a way that, when conflicting science surfaces (as it often does), the motivation for action becomes muddied in an unnecessary way.

Even if this solar lull turns out to by an inaccurate prediction, my above reaction still works as a compelling thought experiment I think. Marginalizing climate science in the framing motive for action on decarbonization may seem to some activists like selling out or closeted denialism, but it seems increasingly clear empirically that tying climate science, a characteristically unstable and uncertain predictor, to this particular political agenda is at best only moderately helpful and at worst counterproductive.