That was a composite of various individual satellite records into one big record for the last 30 years. Each of the satellites has different problems and biases in it's measurements so it's not trivial to combine them. Other composites show no such increase. That composite got more media attention because it showed an increase (even though the increase isn't enough to explain all the recent warming anyway)

That one is a low resolution conclusion, basically saying the recent period, as in century on average, is at a sunspot high, not that it is higher right now than say 50 years ago. The late 20th century has seen a flat, slightly declining trend in sunspot numbers, which is what the OP article seems to be getting at.

It is true that fear mongering sells well. Ice Ages, Aids, SARS, Terrorism, Communism, Y2K, Alien invasions ...........

But what the media and politicians say about a thing is very different to what science says. Global cooling theory was only ever advanced by a few well publicised scientists based on a very limited data set (recent cyclic cooling and untested theories). People made money and perhaps we were a little diverted from Vietnam but it didn't stick because there was more hype than science.

Global warming is another thing. The vast body of scientists and data gathered continues to support it no matter how much debate is entered into. The theoretical basis is well founded and consistent from quantum effects way up to the cosmic. All though scientists of different disciplines consistently contribute all their data in support of the theory.

But why confuse the issue? It's so much more fun to bury your head in the sand and keep your Suburban.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

The two are not even mutually exclusive. Global cooling is the natural, long term trend, while global warming, which leads to climate change, is the abnormal, unnatural, short term trend. The global scale is a composition of many components, some of which are cooling, some of which are heating. When all natural trends, such as natural global cooling, plane elevation, distance from the Sun, fluctuations in its output, etc. are quantified and added, and there remains a statistically significant divergence is when we can talk about human induced global warming as an unnatural and new component. This is of course obviously the case despite all the crazy conspiracy theories claiming the opposite.

Indeed. I should have more accurately talked of the "threat from cooling" rather than the "fact of cooling" being the thing of contention.