eh, it's just a classic symptom of trying to reason with categories instead of pinning things to observable, real-world things. it's scientism — it's a well-meaning attempt to do what scientists seem to be doing, without realizing that most of science is about reducing things to real world ideas.

(the big counter-examples, relativity and quantum mechanics, aren't exceptions at all. thing-go-fast and thing-get-small are super down-to-earth ideas and if the math gets weird, that's on reality, not science.)

so here, what does a sunspot do? it flings electrons at us!

are electrons very massive? do they carry a lot of heat energy? um ... no.

so sure, the studies won't show that sunspots heat us up, and I'm glad they did studies to double check, because that's how we find the really cool stuff out, but the study just confirmed the obvious. and that's where our friend here really loses the plot, because sure, there are lots of cycles on earth and solar sunspot activity goes in cycles, but we need to find a concrete reason to connect them before we even turn to that level of abstraction.

I guess I'm saying that we give their god-of-the-gaps room to breathe when we answer study with study, instead of demanding a mechanism.