Probably has something to do with arguing over 2001 solar flares vs. the general precept of this thread, one is important, the other is ridiculous semantics.
The only 1 playing the nitpicking and word misuse game is you.
One of the notions in science is to test ideas. Here Phage proposes a test. His test is to ask if there were previous events that produced the expected result. The answer is fairly obvious. No. Instead of examining the evidence being presented I see the typical close minded rejection of the evidence.
Do you know how difficult it is to debate a ridiculous contention? I took debate class, we used to call that a
stumper. Something so utterly ridiculous that there's no real way to argue against it, the sky is green because I see that is green, for instance. No
stereologist, most animals aren't tropical. 
