Your "bad"?  I would think that is obvious.

"Celsius and number of sunspots":  And juxtaposing various stretches of those scales is valid?  How?  Why?  You're asking me to take your word for it that there's an actual statistical corelation.  I don't.

"...a study..." made by who, where?  Let me explain: the world wide web, a network on the internet, has the capability to allow people to fetch information from all over the world using what are popularly known as "links".  However, even if such "online" documents aren't available, written materials usually include "citations", such as descriptions of original sources, whether they be magazines, newspapers, books, and printed publications of all sorts.  You might try using one here.

And I notice that you don't bother with "no general acceptance" this time.  Of course, all you would have to do is to cite one or two places where that "study" has been used and accepted in peer-reviewed literature or in respected publications.  But you don't even give us a link to the original material.

That makes me want to ask, "why?"

And you're 37????  Sheesh!  You're old enough to know better.  I take it back my apology.

You are a disappointing waste of time.  In order to avoid repeating my criticisms for a fourth time because, yet again, you utterly fail to refute them,  I'm outta here.

It was YOU who wanted to make this a character issue.  You are the one calling people "hypocrites" at the very top of this page.  You should expect that when you present arguments such as yours that you might be subject to the very kind of character attack that you are making against others.

And it's hypocritical of you to launch an attack on people's characters and then cry foul when people attack yours.