Max,
You present so many details that I can agree on many and disagree on many as well.
Many statements about the role of solar forcing belong to this class. When IPCC lists the understanding of solar forcing as low, it should be joined with the low value of the estimate to mean that the relative uncertainty is very large, but the value in any case small with much better confidence. The alternative views that you bring up are highly speculative and not at all convincing science.
You refer also erroneously to the CERN research. It concentrates on some micro level phenomena and has practically no direct relevance to the estimates of solar forcing. It may provide material for further research that will ultimately give improved understanding of cloud formation. Furthermore the experiment has found certain chemicals more important than radiation at the level they have studied.
Obtaining empirical evidence on the climate change is difficult. There seems to be willingness to draw stronger conclusions than the data can really support. That’s done in both directions – and the most obvious misstatements are certainly made by people, who are not really expert scientists on climate. Some of them are not scientists at all while many specialize in other fields and are all too willing to extend their results to climate issues. This comment applies very much to the papers on solar forcing.