You shouldn't really believe anything one group says over another Bear. I applaud you for reading what this group puts forward. Unfortunately in this debate there are many people who have pre-concieved notions and no matter what they see, that view seems rigid and unchanging.
The one thing that Monckton and I both agree on is the importance of the sun in climate change. I believe it to be the driving factor, but obviously dependant on what the other climactic variables are. I'm caught in between both sides here, though I do lean towards a human element in this equation. I don't think it's nearly as bad as the alarmists say, neither do I think it's all natural. Monckton would have you believe that our CO2 production is negligable. He cherry picked a formula which shows this to be true, but unfortunately for him the formual he used does not apply to us. That is a definition for junk science. As for those who say we'll be better off and the natural systems on Earth will take care of it, I'm not so sure about that. The majority of CO2 removed from the atmosphere is taken up during photosynthesis. However, as concentrations of CO2 increase, and the temperature and light intensity increase, the reaction reaches a maximum. The rate doesn't increase and the excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere. The oceans which take up more CO2 than terrestrial plants are limited by iron concentrations in the water.
There is no silver bullet here. Natural systems have fluccuated for milenia before we were here. Now that we are here, we change the entire balance in EVERYTHING we touch.
Really, what is th eproblem with gradual changes in diversifying our energy needs? The peak of cheap oil is approaching, do we sprint to the finish line without viable alternatives to replace our energy needs? I think that would be a very unwise thing to do, as our economy is driven by our energy demands. Slow diversification will allow us to transition more smoothly when that time comes.