Sunspot activity since 1990
Víctor Manuel Velasco, of the University of Mexico’s Institute of Geophysics, says that recent winter conditions are similar to those of the “little ice age”, and in particular the “Maunder Minimum,” a period during which sunspot activity dropped significantly. He also notes that the Earth is in a similar position today in relation to the rest of the solar system, a fact which he regards as significant for climate.
“We are talking about the period between 1645 and 1715, which is known as the Maunder Minimum, a period in which the sunspots practically disappeared from the surface of the sun, and in which our planet occupied a position similar to which it has today, with respect to the center of gravity of our [solar] system.” Velasco said in an interview published by the university.
LifeSiteNews
Panic in the form of a Carbon Tax is not justified, nor is the political control pressure that drives the warming alarmism.
Related articles
- Scientific debate continues on if the Sun triggers mini Ice Age events (theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com)
- Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All? (news.sciencemag.org)
- Was the last ice age caused by global warming (wiki.answers.com)
- When will global warming destroy earth (wiki.answers.com)
- The Global Climate Change Debate – The Facts (genomega1.wordpress.com)
The GOLDEN RULE 
Thanks for the article – there are many credentialed scientists who categorically dispute the governments stance of climate change/carbon etc.
What gets me is “based on computer models, “…. I know I am not a scientist, but I am a computer operator. I know the data you get out is only as good as the data you put in —- computer predictions have to have a set of variables included etc, and there will always be operator bias! The actual data sets from the satelites, the water temperature readings, the weather balloons all disagree with the computer simulations. What ever happened to real science? Banging head against computer console yet again Arghhhhhhhh.
We are in agreement.
Their argument that computer models prove something is illogical. Its hard enough getting the observed measured data to correlate because of variables, without pretending that, as you say, inputting the data and the variables into a nebulous computer program can be expected to give a sensible future prediction. Their claim of correlation with existing trends can only be meaningful if their trends are fudged in the first place. As I commented to one of the warmists, you claim computer models prove something, we use facts to prove things.