Well, first let's clarify that the NASA article is a composite of the work generated by a panel of climate scientists. NASA makes no claim in the article. Sorry, my claim to take it up with NASA was misleading. It seemed apparent to me that NASA was certainly not disagreeing with the findings of the panel, but technically you are right, NASA remained impartial. The clear conclusions of the climate scientists on those panels was that we should continue studying the effects of the Sun on our climate because the effects could be large, our understanding is quite limited, and acquiring the right data is extremely difficult. There is no indication that because one study found the risk to be 3% that they are abandoning the idea and that it is not a risk worth considering. That is extraordinarily bad science.

To be honest this seems like very clear confirmation bias. You're going through an article (created by an extremely popular government agency with a respected track record) the entire point of which is that the risk of global cooling is real and finding any scrap of evidence that supports the narrative that one shouldn't worry about it which is not a conclusion anyone in the article comes to. You generate that conclusion from the appearance of an apparently small probability which has nothing to do with potential impact and no one claims to be a definitive number. There is NOT a 3% of global cooling. There is one study which claims the probability is 3%. That is statistically significant. It appears that by first presenting the 10-30% number you were primed to perceive 3% as small. It is not. If there was a 3% chance you were going to die tomorrow you would be pretty worried. That being said, no one is claiming that the odds of global cooling are definitely 3%. Only you are. That is significant evidence of confirmation bias.

The only point I am making is that the risk of global cooling is real. Either I am being guided by confirmation bias or you are (I suppose the odds are 50/50 ;) ), but there is not a single point in that article which makes the claim that we shouldn't be worried about this risk and numerous points that indicate we should and yet you came to the former conclusion.

So far still not seeing any proof that either the logic I employed or the science I presented is faulty.