Replies

One would think you would've read the other posts here. I did after further research admit that sunspots have indeed been tracked through antiquity. Galileo had no method to measure their intensity though.

Further; in other posts links were provided showing sunspot activity attributed to the cooling period where London's Thames river froze over. Funny; low sunspot activity causes cooling but the reverse is not true?

Unable to admit being wrong? No my friend the only ones who can't admit to being wrong are the goers to the church of gaia. Funny how you chose that line of attack though; and telling. It sucks when one's faith is questioned.

Also the closet liberal you support never challenged any of my other assertions in the original post and chose instead to flame me and a few others here. He got as good back. I like reasonable discussion of ideas and always like discovering new things. You should try it sometimes. Cheap insults and snide remarks are the stock in trade of the liberal.

Try this.

Whoops. Wrong thread.

I did after further research admit that sunspots have indeed been tracked through antiquity.

Right.

After being humiliated, AND after your comment about the hissy fit.

After running naked through the room it's a bit late to put your clothes on.

One would think you would've read the other posts here. I did after further research admit that sunspots have indeed been tracked through antiquity.

...after *I* was the one to inform you of the depth of your ignorance on that topic and gave you a crash-course on it. Give credit where it's due, slanderer.

Unable to admit being wrong?

Are you unable to do it until embarassed into it and unable to do it without issuing repeated snide slanders against the person who dared informed you that you were being snottily arrogant about something you actually knew nothing about? Yes.

No my friend the only ones who can't admit to being wrong are the goers to the church of gaia.

If I ever meet anyone who belongs to this "church of gaia" thing I'll be sure to pass along your message.

Funny how you chose that line of attack though; and telling. It sucks when one's faith is questioned.

Obviously, since you reacted so badly to your false faith in the non-existence of sunspot data being pointed out, and got all defensive about your faith that scientists are just making everything up including the sunspot data.

You really *do* like making vicious slanders against people whom you disagree with, don't you? I've seen you do that about a half dozen times on this thread so far.

Also the closet liberal you support never challenged any of my other assertions in the original post and chose instead to flame me and a few others here.

Wow, where do I start in this mess of horse crap you're shoveling?

1. I'm no "closet liberal", and you have absolutely no reason for making such an accusation other than the fact that I embarassed you by pointing out your ignorant falsehood. You just spewed the worst insult you could think of, no matter how groundless. I'm just surprised you didn't call me a child molester, but that's probably your next move.

2. What earthly relevance is the fact that I "never challenged any of [your] other assertions in the original post"? Try to remain coherent. That does nothing whatsoever to refute what I wrote about you and your goofy mistakes, nor rescue your arrogant screwup, nor excuse your subsequent behavior over your embarassment.

3. I did not "choose to flame you", I chose to correct the falsehoods you were promulgating and educate you as to the reality you had so little contact with. The fact that this happened to make you look foolish does not magically make my post a "flame". Consider it a rebuke if you like, though. However it's funny that you seem to be outraged over the idea that anyone might "flame" you, since the post of yours to which I was responding was full of ridicule and snottiness. Project much?

4. I "flamed" no "others", son. Hallucinate often? I did however ping some other folks who I was concerned might have been misled by your misinformation, as well as other folks who I thought might appreciate the history review.

You're just *really* fond of leaping to wildly false conclusions for no damned good reason, aren't you?

He got as good back.

Son, you're nowhere in my league -- childishly calling me a liberal and petulantly whining about my correction of your nonsense as a "hissy fit" barely makes you fit to have a playground spat with a fifth-grader. If that's what rates as "good" in your world, you need to expand your horizons.

I like reasonable discussion of ideas and always like discovering new things.

Then why did your post mostly consist of sarcastic insults and snotty rhetorical questions directed at the researchers (who aren't here to respond), instead of a discussion of their data or methods, or instead of going to look up the answers to a few of your own questions? Do a Google of "sunspot history", for example, and you could have "discovered new things" without me having had to spoonfeed it to you after you had already (incorrectly) presumed the answer and chosen to remain smugly ignorant.

You should try it sometimes.

Oh, he does, that's why he doesn't make the kind of childishly boneheaded mistakes you make when he discusses scientific studies.

Cheap insults and snide remarks are the stock in trade of the liberal.

Given the number of "cheap insults and snide remarks" in your original post, and how your subsequent posts have done nothing to allay the impression that they are your "stock in trade", does this make you a liberal? Unlike you I would not make any such presumptuous leap without a firmer basis, but I must say that you certainly seem to enjoy their tactics, their emotional reaction when caught in error, and their average level of maturity.