THIS IS A MEDIA ARTICLE.
read the G-D Science, not the frigging new-press reworded garbage.
The scientists quoted would probably never say that it was 'Record cold in the middle of global warming' He would say that there is WEATHER and CLIMATE.
Pick up and read
"The Long Thaw" by David Archer or "
Our Threatened Oceans" by Stefan Rahmstorf... or
"The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley... those are books written by scientists, NOT writers writing about science, but actual Scientists (novel idea, huh?). Go to realclimate.org and read actual scientists opinions and debates on relevant topics.
Archer is the Preeminent climate modeler in the world, and Rahmstorf is one of the leading experts on Sea level rise and physical oceanography. His work shows that the IPCC models from 10-20 years ago are actually pretty damn accurate based on satellite altimetery measurements of sea-level rise. Richard Alley is one of the big time-guys in everything ice core and big-picture climatology/glaciology. .
Read them as a skeptic, read them as a non-believer, whatever.
they will open your eyes. If these books at the very least don't open your eyes to the possibility that we have an impact to the future of our planet and natural resources, then your own predispositions are clouding your mind, Period.
Until 4 or 5 years ago, I was a skeptic when it came to human induced climate change... then I read the science...
Do I believe that the world will end at 2deg C above present temperatures? Nope, but I do believe that it will have significant consequences to our way of life, agriculture, water resources and even fish/marine (read fish, lobsters etc..) life.
Let me ask this:
Increasing CO2 in the oceans as almost, absolutely been shown to have a deleterious effect on coral and other Carbonate marine organisms... the oceans are huge, how can we raise CO2 and cause this, we have no impact... oh right, the coral bleaching and weakened shells of certain mollusks and bivalves in recent decades is all a lie... or, the science is wrong, there are tons of fish, little old us can't have a big impact on overfishing...
I would believe most scientists are neither optimists or pessimists. the data shows what it shows, and while there is a certain amount of 'if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it' A GOOD scientist keeps his mind open to other explanations. They should not and usually do not have some ill-founded predisposition to a political ideology. Do some? of course, we are human.
And for the record, healthy debate is a good thing, going around in circles is not. All the issues you raised above, especially sunspots, were further study when that hypothesis had lots of backers, and found there is not a direct link to climate and sunspots, and while there is a 1500year cycle, it is strongest during the glacial stages, and hasn;t been overly prevalent in the last 6,000 years or so.
then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right.
Until people post the science, preferably from a peer reviewed journal, to go with their posts on climate change, I'm done. That is healthy debate. Posting random news clip is bull%$%$%$%$. I can probably find a newspaper or blog that blames it all on the world being flat and the center of the universe. Then again there are plenty that don't believe the earth is more than 7,000 years old...