If you've done your research, then you surely know that we've been keeping track of weather on this planet for only the last 150 years or so. When we say "climate change", the "change" part is in relation to last year? last decade? last 100 years? it's all peanuts relatively speaking. Our last ice age was over 11,000 years ago, so a century is really just a blink of an eye.
Second, you must realize that the earth is not standing still in the Milky Way, let alone the universe. Having said that, as the Earth rotates around the Sun, it's not in the exact same spot every single year. Since it's in a different spot, the external factors (such as radiation) are always different, hence affecting our climate.
I can go on and on...
Design with this shit in mind doesn't mean you've done your research. Or perhaps you have done it but cannot listen to arguments opposing yours
I'm not having this argument here because it's completely off topic and clearly I won't be able to reason with you. That being said, some of the stuff you said is blatantly misleading or outright false, so I will refute those and ignore any arguments you may bring up.
We have other ways of measuring temperatures over long periods of time other than weather data. Ice cores, biodiversity levels, glacier sizes, among so many other things have given us ranges of temperature levels in the past, whether they be a few centuries ago, or a few million years ago. You wanna know how we were able to tell that the last ice age was 11K years ago? Through research that has supported climate change. If you haven't noticed, science isn't necessarily based on exact values, and if you took a high school science class, you'd know there's an error associated with every measurement you take. Science accounts for these errors using statistical analysis and estimation, otherwise, it's not science.
The only radiation effects that are significant to Earth come from the sun and the nuclear decay in our core. Radiation is a wave and a particle, it has energy, yes, but it doesn't imply heat. It has to transfer that energy from EM spectra to heat, usually by absorption. A lot is not absorbed, rather, reflected (if it wasn't you wouldn't be able to see anything). Nevertheless, the amount of radiation emitted by the sun is in a state of flux, and the phenomena that cause this are called sunspots. I have read numerous papers hypothesizing that sunspot activity may have an impact on the Earth's climate cycles. The problem with this theory is that sunspot activity is periodic, and it's regularly periodic (every 11 years). While no one knows exactly why sunspots occur, the point is that since it's a regular, periodic change, meaning the average radiation levels will still be constant, and, should have repeated effect on our climate that are seen every 11 or so years if there is any impact at all.
But back to thermodynamics, when that EM radiation is absorbed by the biosphere, it emits heat. According to the second law of thermodynamics, energy will ALWAYS tend to a state of disorder, meaning that heat will convect itself as far away from the earth as possible (since it is the hottest object in our area). Theoretically, regardless of whatever levels of radiation are absorbed by the earth and release heat, a state of equilibrium will ALWAYS be reached, where heat diffuses away from the earth at a constant rate. We are not seeing that now, we are seeing more and more heat being retained by the Earth. Chemically (and quantumly) speaking, the molecular spacing of greenhouse gases allow higher frequency UV and visible light EM radiation to pass through them. Heat is infrared radiation. With it being much longer, it is absorbed by these greenhouse gas molecules (which include compounds like water, methane, carbon dioxide, among others that have a dipole and can change their dipole moment), warming the Earth.
Earth is little more than a speck of dust in the vastness of the universe, meaning it doesn't receive much (if any) noticeable action. If you genuinely think the stars are having a significant effect on earth's temperatures, you're sorely mistaken. Stars are lightyears away (meaning light takes years to get here, all the while it has to deal with absorption from other objects, bending from large-gravity, and divergence. Once they get here years (sometimes centuries later), they barely give off enough light to be seen in a lot of areas. A First/Last Quarter moon gives off more light than all the stars in the sky, even without light pollution.
One thing to note, the reason the Earth's large, isolated temperatures fluctuations (the seasons) is because of the tilt of the earth, not its location about the sun.
One final thing to note, I said and I quote: "The change in climate parameters (ie mainly temperatures), largely attributed to the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." I never mentioned human emissions or defined Climate Change as a result of human interactions. Why you may ask? Because that is a naïve assumption. The climate is complicated and there are certainly an infinite number of factors affecting climate change, whether they be volcanism, sunspots (potentially), human interaction, natural disasters (ie forest fires/arctic methane release), or even some of the things you mentioned. That doesn't give anyone the right to write off the issue or attribute it to pseudoscience.
I would not dare assume I haven't done my research on this subject.
Back to VIA, the presence of the video can only do so much good. Some public surveying I've done (not at all scientific) has shown that no one really knows what HFR is. Many simply attribute it to the HSR plan the liberals toughted 3 years ago. I can only hope more sorts of videos like these are released.