Well, I can't say I've heard that argument made, either. But then, you may be using these terms "global warming" and "global cooling" somewhat differently than I would, or you may be tossing them around without really understanding them, somehow taking it for granted that "everyone understands what they mean."

Of course, if "sun activity" was limited or set arbitrarily equal to a measure of illumination such as TSI, then the basic equations here would show a corresponding swing in temperatures. Well, except that actually, there would be a change in heat content, which might or might not be reflected immediately in temperature. But realistically, say the increase in temperature from 6AM to 1PM would show a variation that was measurable and replicatable, and which moved with the TSI.

That is of course, an incomplete view. Numerous other output products from the Sun influence our climate, directly and indirectly. The solar wind, and cosmic rays affect climate.

But why don't you define what you mean by these two terms, global cooling, and global warming, so that we are not just talking about different things but thinking they are the same. To me, there are cooling influences and warming influences on climate, and they sum each day to net effects. Thus it is nonsensical to deny one, or the other. But these influences would have to be against some standard, since "cooling" and "warming" are relative to something, right?

What, then, is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?