Because the IPCC is a hundred environmental scientists.  Not an...

Because the IPCC is a hundred environmental scientists.  Not an article on a right-wing website !  Do you seriously expect me to hold that article up in the same light as the IPCC report !?

I talked about sunspots and the solar cycle in my last post. The solar cycle is like a stock chart. It goes up and down. The 11 years is the time it goes from minimum to minimum. Yes it has a lower low this time. It also had lower high this time.  And the last time this low was in 1765, so yes it might be 70 years of lower sunspot activity which the article equates to a cooling period or little ice age. 

The IPCC said, as I copied in previous email, and copied again below, that the high in 2014(peak of the cycle) was lower than the peak in the 1950s and yet the warming has continued.

The current scientific consensus, most specifically that of the IPCC, is that solar variations do play a marginal role in driving global warming,[76] since the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the forcing due to greenhouse gases.[85] Also, solar activity in the 2010s was not higher than in the 1950s (see above), whereas global warming had risen markedly. Otherwise, the level of understanding of solar impacts on weather is low.[86]

So yes the solar cycle is a factor, but not as powerful a factor as CO2 going through 400ppm and rising at an increasing speed towards 500ppm.