The Sun.

Pseudo Scientist and Gov't.

Solar energy is the dominant force behind climate change but the presence of vegetation and animal life and the way they alter the chemical composition of the oceans and the atmosphere plays a significant roll. For example there would be no free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere if there was no plant life.

To answer the second part of the question it is important to understand the difference between climate science and climate politics. From the perspective of the scientist (real scientists) climate change is a phenomenon to be studied and understood. From the perspective of the politician it is a tool that can be used to increase political power. The scientist wants to understand it while the politician doesn't care if it is real or not. It is only important that it be accepted as a threat. As H. L. Menkin observed, "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."

1) The sun and Techtonics play the major role in the changing climate. Periods of high sunspot activity tend to make the Earth warmer, while low sunspot activity tends to make the Earth cooler. It all depends on the amount of radiation that the sun puts out. Also, tectonic activity is the second most important factor, which may also be influenced by the sun, if recent studies hold true. The more that the continents shift and move and more volcanic activity (currently occurring) tend to warm up the earth, while periods of greater quite tend to cool the earth. Part of the reasoning is that the Water Vapor and other greenhouse gasses that get released during volcanism, and shifts in the position of the crust tend to heat the atmosphere. It has been hypothesized that the natural condition of the Earth is without icecaps, and at any point in history when there are icecaps it is an Ice Age.

Now humans may have a small effect on climate, but more likely in localized settings, not worldwide. Heat zones, loss of vegetation, particulate concentrations, and massive structures within cities could create a change in weather patterns both within and outside the city (more towards the direction of the prevailing winds). Hence more probability for severe storms. But once again, localized.

2) Those who benefit are: "Poor Countries"/ Dictators who through world regulations receive money from "Rich Countries" for whom are responsible for the "Changing Climate", so they can "Help" their people achieve what the "Rich Countries" have. Politicians who get kickbacks from organizations and people pushing the "Climate Change" initiative. Companies and Organizations that study and push the "Climate Change" initiative by deceiving or fear mongering the public into donations. Scientists and Academic Institutions who "Study" and report on "Climate Change", because they will get grant money or donations in order to keep studying and reporting on the "issue".

Climate is primarily determined by to tilt of the Earth's axis, Earth's rotation and whatever the sun's doing.

Who benefits? Authoritarians looking for excuses for control and scientists looking for excuses more more funding for their studies.

1) The Sun...simply put. see: suspicious0bservers.org
2) The Global kakistocracies, (governments by the worst and least qualified) and their crony connections all to lead a global collective to keep them in control and YOU unaware of what's really happening.
Not theory, it's observable and they have duplicated their faux theory and have repeated their ruse consistently over history.

In partial answers to my own questions, I wonder if people are truly significantly influencing the global climate – significant being the important point. From my limited scientific knowledge it seems to me that the Sun is the primary influencer of changing climate and that the efforts of people to make a difference are a bit like “tilting at a windmill.”

The second point makes me wonder just how honest the climate scientists are. My reference point here is Dupont’s Freon. Just at the time that the patent on Freon was to expire it was ‘discovered’ that Freon was harming the environment by causing global warming and needed to be taken off the market. Lucky for us, Dupont just happened to have a new patent on R-134 refrigerant which would replace Freon and do less harm to the environment. Or maybe it was just a coincidence???

The Sun

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary". H. L. Mencken

Now, "science," using the same concept, has jumped in as rent seekers.

Not saying it isn't. However, just try to argue with one, and tell/show them the facts. They have no real come back except to get super upset or call you racist. What they don't understand is that they just lost at this point, and there is no more reason to argue. Yet, they take it as their win.

Also, the Socialist/Communist mentality is not truly Socialist/Communist. Because not everyone is the same, instead you get more of a Feudal system, where the ultra rich control everything, and the rest are dirt poor.

Also, these same systems are the exact ones that have caused the greatest genocides/mass murders in history.

The climate change community is about to get a wakeup call, once Scott Pruitt is confirmed to head the EPA. The Oklahoma Attorney General knows all of the tricks employed by the environazis, and will call them out, line and verse. Will we have clean air and water? You bet, but not at the sacrifice of the U.S. economy and American jobs.

Check out this Skeptoid episode (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549). You can see that the isotopes of the CO2 in our atmosphere prove the excess CO2 is from burning fossil fuels. It does prove that we are adding CO2. Also the wavelength window shows that there is some human caused heating. But none of this proves that governments should expand or that we should spend trillions on inefficient sources of energy.

The activity of the sun is a major factor in climate change. Global warming has not happened in about 17 years. Placement of meters to regisiter heat were put in areas know to have bet build up, as in brick NYC courtyards. That fueled scientist to be able to declare global warming. They also found that they then could get grants, which is their lifeblood. They failed to reduce a coming decrease in the incidence of sunspots approaching. They also failed to factor in the cooling of the sun. Likely, it was overlook on p purpose.
Who benefits, the one world government crowd. Those who want to control people using environmental measures, as Hitler once did. Take a close look at Romania today, vs. several years ago, they have moved backward. No AC, rolling brown outs, making refrigeration impossible to maintain, and no place to part the evil cars, thus making them less mobile. Mobility is a threat to those who want complete control.
Yet no one ever mentions the fact that HAARP in Alaska and Puerto Rico, repeatedly heated the ionosphere and changed the jet stream, but then that was government action, not the people. It hs to be shown that people are causing it for people to be controlled.

Perhaps it is best to ask what is climate? It is a metaphysical term dealing with local weather patterns over periods of years, the period lengths depending upon whether what the beholder wants occurs or not. Climate, thus, is not a concrete in nature but a averaging (a rational minds mathematical method) of weather patterns in a certain geographical area. Averages exist only in minds and do not exist in nature. Can the metric for a pattern in a chaotic nature in a local area be temperature changes over a period of time, let alone for the whole Earth as the IPCC seems to believe. Of course the main energy input to weather is the Sun and earth-water-atmosphere system will come to different equilibrium states depending upon changes to the environment and show up in weather patterns. The only greenhouse gas of any consequence is water vapor which can change rapidly from nearly none to about 4% depending upon where it is measured. Its main function (if nature had functions) is the cooling of the of the ground, water bodies, and atmosphere through latent heat due to hydrogen bond breaking and reforming to produce liquid water and as liquid water for storing energy with respect to its high heat capacity.
The temperature of air is not just from the one part in 2500 of CO2 in those 2500 molecules and atoms of N2, O2, and Ar which do not absorb well in the infrared, but gain the energy indicated by their temperatures from transfer of energy from the ground by conduction or from transfer of rotational, translational, or vibrational energy from green house gases which occur in very small amounts other than water vapor. Some of the energy absorbed from the Sun by the N2, O2, and Ar is also in the microwave and radio energies in which they emit radiation.
As for faulty data, there has been a very large loss of personal integrity in the last fifty to 100 years. Today, due to political or social pressure of keeping a well paying job, one is nearly required produce reports which fit the required outcome asked for by the employer. For the climate change investigation of the IPCC it is required to fudge reality due to the purpose of the study proposed by them. The study was to find out how humans affected the climate and not to study climate in all ways. Some of the results which are contrary to human caused climate change are buried in foot notes and in references rather than being discussed in the main bodies of the reports, so just a small amount of dishonesty.

The publication was political (big surprise!) but claiming it is faulty is just grasping at straws. It makes people look desperate to find something to falsify AGW. The chart in the article shows rising temps over 18yrs at about 0.15C per decade. The "false" line is offset upwards (for whatever political reason), but BOTH lines show the same rise rate.