From the article:
“Lee Edwards, the president of BP Solar, a subsidiary of the oil giant BP, said a new state law that took effect in Maryland July 1 helped make the economic case for the expansion.”

The law, which requires an increasing percentage of energy come from solar, helped make this happen. The advancements we could make with decisive federal legislation are exactly what we need.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.frederick17jul17,0,6384709.story?coll=bal-pe-business

When talking about the report, a representative for the Royal Society put it well:
“This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous.”

I think the solar irradiance is what threw me off as to what you position is. I’m still not sure what you are trying to prove with it and would appreciate any clarification. The graph you cite seems to agree with the study, which had this to say on the subject:
“The inferred changes in TSI [Solar Irradiance] are much smaller than required to cause significant climate change.”

As for the quote from one of the reports author, below is the context from which you took it:
“‘Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It’s only been invoked now as a way out,’ he said [an author of the report]. Even if the lag were 50 years then he believes we would begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down.”

Fist, the author did not directly say the portion you quote, that was the article author summarizing. Though I admit he probably did say something similar, this is an important distinction. Is it possible there is a lag? Yes, if unlikely. Does it mean we shouldn’t try to cut CO2 emissions? Not in the least. The potential ramifications of doing nothing are immense. When the majority of the worlds scientists agree on something (that humans are causing climate change), I think it is wise to listen.

The article further points out an alarming fact that “even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty.”

As for the NewScientist piece you link to:
This has nothing to do with the sun, so I assume you meant it to prove that thermal lag exists. The Royal Society study doesn’t address thermal lag, so this doesn’t prove or disprove anything regarding the study. The article itself actually further supports the need for immediate legislation addressing global warming.
“This time lag means policymakers cannot afford to wait to tackle climate change until its consequences become painful, because by then they will already be committed to further change, they urge.”

And even when you can show scientific consensus, sometimes the response is that “science should not be a popularity contest.”

To suggest this thesis is wrong is to not look at the evidence. Which if you look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
You’ll see total irradiance stayed the same.

As for thermal lag, see here http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7161