OT: Australia gets it right...

Am 13.11.2013 18:49, schrieb Jim Thompson:

......

Zitat: "The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time." Zitat Ende.

Has nothing to do with the topic.

I see...

And, what happened to global temperatures during this period?

Did you get that... "Has nothing to do with the topic." More bloviation and deviation (or is it deviants ?:-) away from the topic when questioned.

Worthless leftist trash we have lurking here, spouting nonsense and hiding under anonymity/pseudonym.

Peter will now surely claim that the flatline temperatures for, what is it, fifteen years, are meaningless, and we're doomed by CO2.

What we need is a good war... to legally kill off the riffraff >:-} ...Jim Thompson

And what? You claim to have the education in climatology to dispute the scientists engaged in spreading their vile doomsday scenario, so instead of posting to a climatology forum, where such effort would be regarded as peer review, you post to electronics.

Not disputing your education in electronics, mind you, just your choice of a forum for climatology.

That's what gives me pause. That suggests some hidden agenda.

Like the site you cite?

Yup. So your premise is that solar radiation either completely explains global warming or was the trigger. What do we have, 50 years of relatively good data, and another 300 years of other data, and that's game-set-and-match for you.

Aha, so you see yourself as the big manipulator? Arrogant and narcissistic wouldn't you say? The quiet puppeteer staying out of the limelight pulling the strings to watch the puppets dance so he can feel superior....

That's what floats your ego? A questionable achievement to my way of thinking.

I worked for the NSA. That and an ex wife that doesn't understand that a divorce decree is a way of saying "I never want to have anything to do with you, ever."

Am 13.11.2013 19:51, schrieb Charlie E.:

They fell, of course. They fell 400 years ago. Not today. And not in the next 100 years, because that´s the time such a minimum needs to arise.

Simulations have been made for a case, that such a Minimum would arise today or in the near future. In this case such a minimum would cause a temperature 0.3° less.

Obviously JT had thrown a term in the round without knowing what he is speaking about.

You appear to have a reading comprehension problem... I said, "I wasn't "proving" anything, only observing an amusement."

I didn't cite the site for facts, You appear to have a reading comprehension problem... I said, "I wasn't "proving" anything, only observing an amusement."

I believe in history. You apparently know none.

You appear to have a reading comprehension problem... I said, "I wasn't "proving" anything, only observing an amusement." and "I just like to tweak village idiots and watch them go ballistic >:-}

Aha! Ducking the alimony and child support? Figures! White trash village idiot!

Don't bother responding, I won't see it. ...Jim Thompson

Am 13.11.2013 21:07, schrieb Jim Thompson:

No more arguments or facts? I see only gossip and nonsense.

You don't see it.

why would they glow? Natural argon is not radioactive.

here.

Hmmm. You sound a lot like pot,kettel:=black.

Try finding some well documented facts to present. Like my favorite to rip, ice core data misrepresentations.

?-)