Why Pessimism Is Good For You

“The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much; if he is an optimist after it he knows too little.”
― Mark Twain

In the last installment I discussed my claustrophobia and having an MRI on my shoulder. I had reinjured a surgically repaired shoulder and noted that the doctor “thinks we might be able to avoid surgery or if we do have surgery he can just ‘scope’ it. “ Well, I had my follow up meeting with the doctor and he gives me the bad news. The MRI shows a significant tear (3cm) in the rotator cuff. It will require “open” surgery and we need to do it sooner rather than later. Seems that my tolerance for pain has worked against me. I injured the shoulder last September and thought it wasn’t that bad. Turns out I was wrong and now it’s almost too late to fix it. Not fixing it means that eventually the shoulder will lock up and just become a useless knot o f pain. The fact that I’m still working out, doing chores and playing golf is because I’m in good shape and have a high tolerance for pain (a trait which has been invaluable in both the trucking industry and headhunting.)

Once again I am reminded why optimism is way over-rated and expecting the worse nearly always makes sense. Had I expected the worse last year when I injured the shoulder, I would have gone to the doctor at that time. The repair would have been much easier and more likely to have a successful outcome. I would have also avoided months of pain and anxiety about what’s really wrong with my shoulder. Had I expected the worse when I finally went to the doctor, I would not have been so disappointed when he told me about the surgery requirement.

I am convinced that being a pessimist in the best and safest path to take in this life. Every time I try to be positive, reality kicks me in the balls. So I’m having another shoulder surgery on July 2. If I live through it and don’t get an infection I will be happy. I expect a lot of pain, weeks of torturous rehab and, at best, a weak and stiff shoulder when it’s all said and done. Anything better will be a bonus and exceed my wildest expectations. Now prepared for the worst, I can relax.

Don't Fence Me In

“Empty?! You took all the cookies!"
"They were crying to get out of the jar... Cookies get claustrophobia too, you know!”
― Charles M. Schulz

Hello, my name is Neal and I am claustrophobic. Seriously claustrophobic. I always knew that I had a strong tendency toward claustrophobia. Some of my earliest childhood memories were of my mother bathing me and washing my hair. She believed that the best way to rinse the soap out my hair was to lay me back in the tub, sort of a baptizing type of maneuver. She would dunk me, face up with just my nose above water and proceed to rub and massage all of the soap off of my little head. What should have been a pleasant experience actually freaked me out. Eventually she learned that the best way to rinse my hair was to let me get under the faucet and take care of it myself.

I didn’t think too much about it until I started playing football and discovered that I did not like piles of people, especially if I was on the bottom. I remember refs warning me about kicking my way out of pileups. The only other warning sign for me was the fear of car trunks. Back in the day, we had drive-in theaters and everyone in the car had to buy a ticket. That is everyone except the kids in the trunk. So we would stuff people in the trunk to save money. I tried it one time and they couldn’t even close the trunk before I was clawing my way out. Just could not do it. No way.

As I grew older I sort of forgot about my claustrophobia. Nothing seemed to bother me much. I could ride on crowded elevators, squeeze in to the window seat on an airplane or sit for long periods of time in a dentist chair with all sorts of tools and equipment locked and braced in my mouth and suffer no panic attacks. Then one day I was traveling on business and got stuck on a little commuter plane. It was one of those old metro liners that was like a flying tube with one seat rows going down both sides. We ended up sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off and it was a very warm and muggy day. Pretty soon it started to get hot and stuffy in that “flying tube”. And passengers started to squirm and bitch about the heat and the lack of air. Then it hit me. It took everything I had to keep from getting up from my seat and breaking out of that plane. I literally felt like I was going to die. Fortunately, a few minutes later the plane started to move and the air came on. I survived that episode but it was only a precursor of more to come.

I was in my 30’s when the suffocating “flying tube” panic attack hit me. After that I began to have problems with closed in or crowded spaces. It became imperative that I have an aisle seat on airplanes. If I got on a elevator, I stood near the door no matter how many people got on. “Step on by, I ain’t movin’. “ Dental work became a nightmare. I wasn’t worried about pain or discomfort. It was about being reclined back in the chair with the dentist and his assistant leaning over me, all sorts of hardware and tubes and hands stuck in my mouth and no way to escape. Then I began to have attacks at night. Especially in hotel rooms that were too small or had poor air circulation.

But I managed and found ways to get through the “attacks”. Until I had my first MRI. I had tolerated a bad shoulder for years. It was an old sports injury that got worse over time and I had reinjured it working out. I finally went to a shoulder specialist and he sent me for an MRI. OMG, I had no idea that I would be stuffed into this tiny tube for half hour being forced to listen to loud banging, grinding and gnawing. I lasted about…oh maybe 30 seconds. Get me out of here. So I found that I could only have an MRI if I was sedated. We rescheduled it so I would have someone to drive me home. I white-knuckled through with 10 mg of valium on board, but said I would never do that again.

Successful shoulder surgery followed, but my claustrophobia got worse. I could not even watch a movie or television show about someone being trapped or in a confined space. Then a couple of years later, I fell off of a roof (never had a fear of heights) and tore up my good shoulder. Back to the MRI machine, only this time, they had to give me an IV and about 20 mg of valium. It was still an awful experience. Frankly worse for me than the shoulder surgery and rehab.

The years went by and my claustrophobia got worse. Those MRI’s just haunted me. I swore I’d never take another one. Just shoot me. I wasn’t going back in that thing. Then about a year ago I re-injured my shoulder. It hasn’t gotten much better, so I finally went to the doctor. Trained professional that he is he determined that I had a bad shoulder, probably another rotator cuff or labrum injury. Gee whiz, exactly what I thought. He thinks we might be able to avoid surgery or if we do have surgery he can just ‘scope’ it. (The first two were open and I have long scars on each shoulder as reminders.) But doctors will do nothing without first getting an MRI. My greatest fear realized once more.

So last Friday, I had another MRI. It had been almost eight years since my last one. This is a new doctor and I had to tell him about my claustrophobia. He said let’s see if you can make it with 15 mg of valium, 10 an hour before the MRI and 5 more thirty minutes before. I agreed to give it a shot, but told him that it might not work. We might just have to knock me out. I swore I’d never take another one unless I was unconscious.

Well, as it turns out I survived it. It wasn’t fun and I could not have done it without the “little helpers”. But I did not suffer and I don’t think it will give me nightmares. I’m still trying to figure out what has changed inside of me. I’m older and that does make a difference for sure. But I think the biggest difference is that I don’t drink much anymore. I used to be a daily drinker. Not all day and not crazy amounts, but more than I should have. I’ve now cut way, way back. I’ll go for weeks at a time without so much as a beer. I had noticed that I slept better and seemed to be less irritable than back when I drank. After getting through the MRI, I decided to do a little research on alcohol and “phobias”. Turns out that there is a good bit of evidence that alcohol can make them worse.

I’m not a teetotaler and probably never will be. No one enjoys a good beer buzz or a couple of cocktails more than me. But one needs to be careful. Over time, what we put in our bodies does have an effect on our minds. Especially if we are already inclined toward certain types of damaging emotional responses and behaviors. I will always be claustrophobic, impatient and easily angered. We all have our demons. And the more doors and windows we leave open, the more they will visit us.

To Be a Rock and Not to Roll

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9


There is Classic Rock Music and then there are Classic Rock Songs. Any Mount Rushmore of Classic Rock Songs includes Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven”. The other three on my “Rushmore” are “Nights In White Satin” (Moody Blues), Comfortably Numb (Pink Floyd) and All Along The Watch Tower (Jimi Hendrix). My wife has vetoed the playing of these at my funeral, but if I outlive her…watch out.

However, a problem has arisen with respect to “Stairway to Heaven”, a problem which I thought had been resolved long ago. Another band from back in the day, Spirit, had a song titled “Taurus” that starts out a lot like STH. I thought everybody knew this. Then I realized that a lot of people who used to know this are now dead or can no longer remember much of anything; certainly not Spirit or Randy California. (He did vocals, played guitar and was one of the band’s founders. He actually got his name from Jimi Hendrix. But that’s another story and also involves a Randy Texas. Randy California’s real name was Randy Craig Wolfe which should have been cool enough if you ask me.) Spirit’s instrumental “Taurus” was written and recorded a couple of years before STH. In fact, Spirit was a pretty hot band in the late 60’s and Led Zeppelin actually opened for them a couple of times. They no doubt heard “Taurus” and I guess the tune stuck in their head. They tweaked it just a tad, but it’s basically the same music used in the “Stairway to Heaven” intro.

So when Stairway to Heaven came out, those of us fortunate enough to have Spirit’s first album, creatively titled “Spirit”, immediately recognized the intro music as being essentially the same as Taurus. However, by this time the mainstream was starting to get on board with what would become Classic Rock. In addition, Spirit’s second album had come out with their biggest hit, “I Got a Line On You” (had nothing to do with drugs…or did it?). Spirit became known for that one hit and Led Zeppelin turned out to be one of the greatest rock bands ever. Spirit, the band was forgotten and Taurus, the song, became a footnote in Rock N’ Roll history.

Then this week we hear that Spirit’s founding bassist Mark Andes and the estate of the late Randy California are planning to file a copyright infringement lawsuit and seek an injunction that would prevent Zeppelin from re-releasing the album containing the song, which the band has plans to do this summer. I guess someone forgot to tie up a loose end somewhere. I always figured that some 40 odd years ago Spirit quietly got a check under the table and agreed to keep their mouth shut. And no one was going to pay attention to their handful of burned out fans who were mumbling something about Taurus and those English bastards ripping off our guys.

It’s still hard for me to imagine that this music is over 40 years old. That it’s being re-released and that someone would file suit over it is even more incredible. The cynic in me thinks that the lawsuit is just all part of the promotion. Once again Spirit is getting a check under the table along with a wink and a nod for helping out.

(Randy California died in 1997. He drowned in the Pacific ocean at the age of 45 while rescuing his 12-year-old son Quinn from a rip current near the home of his mother, Bernice Pearl, at Molokai, Hawaii. He managed to push Quinn (who survived) toward the shore.)


And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all, yeah
To be a rock and not to roll

And she's buying a stairway to heaven

Talent or Skill or Something More Part II

Last time we talked about the importance of talent and skill, the differences between talent and skill and how to evaluate them. We noted that while talent and skill are critical to success, they are not enough. The application of talent and skill requires a strong work ethic as well as the right attitude. We’ve all seen talented and skilled people who lacked the work ethic to be successful. And, then there are those who have the talent, the skill and the work ethic; but their attitude is so negative or downright poisonous that it negates everything else. We proceeded to conclude that if you hire a person who has talent, skills, a strong work ethic and the right attitude; you would expect to have a winner. We noted that organizations go to great lengths to evaluate candidates with regard to these key factors. And then we asked the question: Why do we see so many poor hiring decisions?

Before addressing that question, we need to clarify what we mean here by poor hiring decisions. Just because a hire does not work out, does not mean that it’s a poor hiring decision. Sometimes an organization is so far gone, that even the most capable and qualified candidate cannot succeed. What we’re talking about here is the case where the strategy and resources are such that it is reasonable to expect a successful outcome. Under those conditions, how could a talented, skilled, hard-working professional with a great attitude not be successful?

We alluded to it last time. I called it the “situation”. A better term would be “relevant background”. Specific industry knowledge and experience are critical in certain sectors. In service industries the required knowledge and experience is very critical. And the smaller the organization, the more critical that knowledge and experience becomes. Time and again I have witnessed companies hire executives who lack the “relevant background” to succeed in their organization. It’s risky for me to give specific examples. They know who they are. But, let’s be honest we’ve all seen it. Some of us have had the painful experience of working for one of these companies. Some of us have even been hired for positions we should not have been hired for just because we could check off four out of five boxes: Talent-check, Skills-check, Work Ethic-check, Attitude-check, Background/Experience- meh…close enough.

Realistically, it can be virtually impossible to find candidates who check off every box at the optimal level. My advice to clients is to set REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS for each for these five key factors. Obviously, those requirements will vary by the level and responsibilities of the position. As a general rule, for lower level roles where you have the time and resources for training; you should focus more on talent, work ethic and attitude than skills and background/experience. But when you get to management and executive level positions, especially those closest to operational and commercial activities, you better be CHECKING ALL OF THE BOXES. Don’t get blinded by exceptional candidates who lack the relevant background and experience to succeed in the position. Set reasonable requirements for ‘background/experience’ and do not compromise.

There is a tendency, especially when “non-industry” people are involved in the hiring decision (you know who you are), to hire for the board room not for the business. While I think it’s good to have the outsiders’ perspectives on hiring, just remember…they are outsiders. Sometimes you have no choice other than to go with their decision. But, you can tilt the odds in your favor by starting out with the right specs for the position. And those specs should include industry background/experience that is clearly relevant to the position.

If you happen to be the candidate in one of these “beauty contests”, you should do your own “box checking” . If you lack the relevant background and experience, ask those with whom you interview about the importance of these key factors. And if you get short, empty answers or different answers from different interviewers, those are big red flags. Park your ego at the door and be honest with yourself. Lacking the background and experience in this specific industry segment, can you succeed in this position in this organization?

Talent or Skill or Something More

Talent: A special ability that allows someone to do something well. Innate ability or aptitude.
Skill: The ability to do something that comes from training, experience or practice. Developed talent or ability.
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Every company wants to hire the best person for the job. And every person wants the job that is best for them. Seems simple enough. So why are there so many hiring mistakes? Why do so many companies hire the wrong people and why do so many people take the wrong jobs? People are involved and that always makes it messy. I have certainly come to understand that there are no “sure things” when it comes to hiring. One thing that is “sure” is the difference between TALENT and SKILL. What is not so sure is how one determines or measures talent and skill levels? And, when it comes to doing a specific job, which is more important, talent or skill? And are they even enough?

I have a number of clients who test for talent. These tests tend to measure a candidate’s intellectual capacity or critical thinking ability. They may also use assessment tools to identify work behaviors and management styles. I am actually a big believer in the use of testing and assessments to determine if a candidate has “the required” talent and personality to fit the position (and/or the company). And clearly there are positive correlations between test/assessment results and job success. But, I see some employers setting the bar so high or the specs so tight on their testing that they unnecessarily eliminate candidates who have developed exceptional skills for the position. Or they try to use the one size fits all approach to testing. News flash: Safety people have different profiles than Operations or Sales people. So if you’re going to test and profile candidates, make sure that you are using the right tools in the right way. Otherwise, you will end up eliminating some of the best candidates and selecting from a very small pool of candidates who “pass the tests” or “fit the profile”. You may even end up hiring someone who has the “talent” but lacks the skills to do the job. The old saying “Hire for talent, train for skills” is great advice as long as you’re prepared to “train”. And, oh by the way, can you afford the time and missteps that come from placing a talented, but “unskilled”, person in the job?

Ideally, you want to hire people who are talented AND skilled. And for management and executive positions, you absolutely need both talent and skill. In addition to “testing” for talent, past performance can say a lot about talent level. It can also be a strong indicator of skill. It is often said that past performance is the best indicator of future performance. It’s a simple formula right? Person has the ability (talent) + person develops the ability (skill) = positive performance. Well, not exactly. POSITIVE PERFORMANCE IS NOT ONLY A FUNCTION OF TALENT AND SKILL. It is also the result of application (work), orientation (attitude) and situation (industry, company, location, economy, etc….not the Jersey Shore guy).

So, we can test, assess and interview in ways that help us determine a candidate’s talent level. Education, certifications and past experience/performance also tend to reflect talent and some level of skill. They also give us a sense of application (work) and orientation (attitude). Therefore, if we hire someone who is talented, skilled, possesses a strong work ethic and positive attitude and all of this has been demonstrated with a successful track record of performance, we have a winner. Maybe, maybe not.

The most over-looked and under-estimated variable in the “performance” equation is the “situation”. I call it Ego’s blind spot. And the further up the organizational food chain one travels, the bigger the blind spot. Smart, successful people like to hire other smart, successful people. Self-made birds of a feather flock together. Give a hiring committee a talented, skilled candidate with a record of accomplishments and “executive presence” and you have the proverbial “slam dunk” placement.

So why do so many “slam dunks” hit the back of the rim? We’ll talk about that next time.

Homeless

“To know oneself, is above all, to know what one lacks. It is to measure oneself against the Truth, and not the other way around.”- Flannery O’Connor



From a USA Today article by Lori Grisham

Someone has recently taken up permanent residence on a park bench outside St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Davidson, N.C.

It's "Homeless Jesus," a bronze sculpture by Timothy Schmalz installed in February, which depicts Jesus lying on a park bench under a blanket. His face and hands are covered. His feet, wounded from the crucifixion, are exposed.

"It makes people think about their faith commitment and the plight of the homeless in this country," the Rev. David Buck, St. Alban's minister, told USA TODAY Network.
It's "life-size, interactive, and in keeping with our church's commitment to social justice," he said, noting that the church considers art to be connected to spiritual growth.

The community, which Buck describes as "affluent," has mostly expressed positive reactions to the piece, he says, adding that everyone from atheists to conservative Christians have expressed admiration.

"We wanted to remind ourselves that our faith expresses itself not in beautiful buildings only, but mainly in care for those less fortunate, the marginalized," he said.
A plaque near the sculpture calls the artwork a "visual prayer" for Kate MacIntyre, a member of the church who died in 2007.

A church member gave the statue as a gift in memory of Kate MacIntyre, a former member who died of cancer in 2007. MacIntyre loved public art and helped start art initiatives in the Davidson community, Buck said.

"Homeless Jesus" cost $22,000, but the church did not foot any of the bill, according to Buck.

**********************************************************


I guess I just don’t have a Christian heart. Whatever faith I profess must not go deep enough. Because my reaction to the above report was “really?” While I do believe that Christians (and people of all faiths along with ethical atheists and society in general) should do their part to help those who are less fortunate; how much help is enough? And what sort of help should be offered? When does help just become a way of enabling those on a self-destructive path to enjoy a more comfortable ride? And when does help redirect someone to a better life?

There are a lot of causes for homelessness. Many of the homeless have mental problems. There are drug and alcohol abuse issues. And many of these are veterans. A high percentage of kids who grow up in foster care, end up on the street when they are too old to remain in “the system”. There are the teenage runaways and sexually abused. A disproportionate number of LGBT young people end up on the street. (Ironically many of them rejected by Christian families and communities that now buy $22,000 bronze art pieces to remind themselves not to neglect the homeless.)

We can “think about” our “faith commitment” and the “plight of the homeless”. And perhaps thinking about it will make us feel better or feel worse or just feel. We can also do something by providing basic food, clothing and shelter to those in need. In the grand scheme of things it really does not cost us that much to help the homeless and Jesus pretty much commands us to do so. But don’t play the “Jesus was a homeless person” card. Jesus was much more than a person and although He did not make it His home, He owns this planet and all of creation. In this Easter Season, I don’t see Jesus sleeping on a park bench. He has work to do. We all have work to do.


Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ – Matthew 25: 34-40

If You Don’t Like The Weather, Just Wait….

I read an article this week about Global Cooling. It was written by Keith Schaefer, Editor/Publisher, www.oilandgas-investments.com and titled “Global COOLING – The Real Inconvenient Truth, Part 1.” I must say that Part 1 left me looking forward to Parts 2 and 3. It also led to me look up some other reports regarding the subject of Global Cooling. There’s a lot out there on both sides of the argument. I’m not sure what to believe, but the Global Cooling arguments are starting to make a lot of sense to me. In addition to Schaefer’s recent article, I would also recommend one written last year in Forbes magazine by Peter Ferrara, “To The Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here”,(http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/).

If forced to pick a side in the debate, I come down on the side of Global Cooling. Do I think human activity is having an impact on the earth’s environment? Yes, of course. But compared to the impact of ocean temperature cycles and sun spots, we are just a blip on the map of climate change history. When one reads the reports and reviews the data, it makes some sense that we are heading for a period of significant global cooling. After providing a summary of warming and cooling periods since the Middle Ages, Schaefer makes the following observations about more recent temperatures:

1. Temps continued to fall from 1953 until the mid-1970s – despite rising CO2 levels. This was during the single most industrializing time on earth—and temperatures fell while CO2 levels rose.

2. Another point: if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km (3-6 miles) above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth’s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.

3. There has been a large outcry about the decline of Arctic Ice. While Arctic sea ice extent is just above average levels, Arctic sea ice is near record thickness: the volume of ice in the Arctic last fall was 50% higher than 12 months prior, following a very cold summer in 2013 in which temps climbed above freezing only 45 days compared to an average of 90 days. I bet you didn’t read about that.

4. There’s a lot of ice at the other end of the globe too. In eight of the last ten years global sea ice extent has bested the 30-year average, aided by an Antarctic sheet that in October hit its highest extent since record keeping started in 1979.

5. The Northern Hemisphere had its second, third, and fourth highest snow extents on modern record in 2010, 2011, and 2013. In the United States 2013 brought the largest year-over-year drop in temperature on record and the winter is on track to be labeled the third coldest in 200 years.

Evidence of this cooling is everywhere – even if politicians and the media try to pretend it isn’t. Of course, the media has short memories. Only 40 years ago, in mid-1974 Time magazine ran a cover story entitled “Another Ice Age?” noting a 12% increase in New Hampshire snow cover in 30 years.

Conclusion: over the last 1,200 years the earth has been through several pretty extreme temperature swings. What gives?
The answer lies with the sun. Cold periods coincide with solar minimums, which generally happen every 150 to 200 years. Warm periods coincide with solar maxima, which happen every 700 years or so.



And then there is this from the Ferrara article:

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states:

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”


And if you have 75 minutes to invest in the subject, the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is an eye-opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ&feature=player_detailpage

Perhaps I am being overly influenced by the winter of 2013-2014 here in North America. While we experienced one of the worst winters in recent memory, other parts of the Northern Hemisphere had record warmth and little moisture. There are plenty of data points from the last 50 years that point toward global warming. But I am inclined to believe that something else is going on over time that has gone on before. Our lives are short and we view our time here as special. As our scientific knowledge grows, we come to believe that we know cause and effect. And knowing cause and effect, we should be able to find solutions. Or can we? If today’s climate is too hot or too dry and we can’t fix it, where does that leave us? And if over the next 150 years the winters get longer and colder and humans can’t fix that either; perhaps they will just blame us for going too green, too soon.