Strange

If they are [citation needed] then maybe it is because they have the most to give. In other words, if your definition of "best" is "giving the most" then it is would not be surprising if the richest people were the "best". On the other hand, in 1998 the citizens of the village of Sanankoroba in Mali raised one hundred dollars as emergency relief for their twin town of Sainte-Élisabeth in Quebec, which had been severely affected by a storm. That was small in cash terms but huge in terms of giving. In some ways, far "better" than Bill Gates' billions. http://reliefweb.int/report/mali/minister-international-cooperation-visits-mali

No, zero is not an object (or element) in the set, it is the set without anything in (called the "empty set"). Even more informally, if you have no objects in your collection, then you have zero.

OK. Let's try again without my sarcastic comments which were obviously a distraction from the serious questions. 1. What, exactly, are you saying is nonsense? 2. As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them? (Do you need me to quote the post where you have said this?) 3. But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future?

What, exactly, are you saying is nonsense? As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them? But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future? Can you really not see how inconsistent your position is? (And, of course, you can't help but be inconsistent because you are arguing based on blind belief, rather than science.) So far, your best arguments have been: "CO2 is harmless but I think it would be a good idea to spend money reducing it" "Climate models show the climate has changed but climate models are too inaccurate to use" "Scientists agree that the data shows that CO2 causes climate change but I am going to believe a novelist and assorted liars instead" Did you have a lot of "Must try harder" entries in your school reports?

Well, c is the "conversion factor" when, for example, a Lorentz transform rotates between space and time coordinates. Actually, "conversion factor" isn't quite right as implies some sort of linear relationship and it is a lttle more complex than that. Yes, all four dimensions are orthogonal.

OK. So you don't know what the word dimension means in physics. It helps to know that. The simplest, informal description is the number of pieces of information you need to define an event in space-time. (Hence my joke about meeting at a specified volume.) In reality, you cannot use your single dimension (volume) to specify a meeting, you need to use four dimensions. For example, these could be latitude, longitude, altitude and date/time. (Anything else you choose, such as a street address, is just another way of "encoding" these dimensions.) The important point about these dimensions is that they are "orthogonal"; in other words you can't express one of them in terms of the others. It would be impossible to arrange a meeting by just defining a volume; "Lets meet at 13 litres" ?? (But you could use the three spatial dimensions to say where in that volume to meet) I think you would struggle to calculate the trajectory of a ball using only volume, and not time plus at least two spatial dimensions. But please feel free to prove me wrong. And after that, perhaps you could rewrite Einstein's field equations using only volume instead of 4 space-time dimensions.

Because, as you say, a lot of the Sun's energy is not in the infra-red range. That energy heats the Earth which then re-radiates it as infra-red (because the Earth is not as hot as the Sun) http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/ https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you mean that the result of climate science is too depressing and might make people give up? So you think we should not do any research on climate change and just hope that everything will be OK? And why do you think people need to "resist" climate change if you don't believe it is real? How are people going to "resist" climate change without accurate information about the causes, how large the consequences might be and therefore what actions might be needed to mitigate and adapt to these changes? That is like suggesting we can address famine by not doing any research into better agricultural practices.

These are two great example of your cognitive dissonance (hypocrisy / dishonesty / whatever) when it comes to this subject. 1. That data is from the models that you say are wrong. Therefore you should not be using it. 2. The fact that there has been change in the climate in the past is obviously true. Perhaps you could explain why you think that our understanding of past causes of climate change proves that our understanding of current climate change is wrong? (Presumably because some ignorant tabloid journalist told you so.)

There are two separate things here. Firstly, there are coordinate systems where gravity can be visualised as "flowing". For example, the Gullstrand-Painlevé description of a black hole: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html The second thing is the jets generated by a black hole. It is important to realise that these are generated outside the black hole and are driven by the infalling matter and the intense electrical and magnetic fields around the rotating black hole (or other dense object). I don't think the mechanisms are full understood yet. I don't know if it makes sense to compare this with any type of pump (a railgun might be a better analogy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet Well, we understand electric (and therefore magnetic) forces pretty well. This includes attraction (pull) and repulsion (push) on an equal basis. And your intuitive understanding of push, is entirely the result of electrostatic forces. (I don't think you can push hard enough for Pauli exclusion to become a factor!) And I would say gravity is pretty well understood, even though we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet.

He wasn't mistaken about the warming. Neither are climate scientists. After all, we have much better models now. You have still presented nothing to support your claims other than your wish it weren't true. You are, of course, free to bury your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening. But that sort of wilful ignorance is not a challenge to the science.

I think it was a reference to your ignorant claims that climate change isn't due to CO2. You have made it clear that this is based purely on your political beliefs not on any evidence or science. If you think CO2 is not relevant, then you should present some science to support that.

No. That is exactly the same thing: more CO2 = warmer. How blinded by political prejudices do you have to be to think that warming is not the same thing as warming. Extraordinary. But also, you complain that we need better models. We now have better models, which is why we know that older fears about an ice age were mistaken. And of course, in future, we will have even better models (as some of your own links and quotations confirm).

My bank provides a little device where you type in a PIN and it generates a one-time code. It generates different codes for logging in, authorising transfers, etc. This seems pretty secure.

I'm not sure that analogy works. There you had a model, based on all the known factors, which failed to produce the expected results. And also that model was not based on cause and effect but rather on correlations. Climate models are quite different. For one thing, they do produce the expected results (as you said, the world is very old and this gives us a lot of data to test models against). The effect of CO2 is not based on an observed correlation ("oh look CO2 and temperature have both gone up") but on the well-known underlying causes, in other words the physics. These effects were predicted long before it became a problem: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

There all sorts of more secure mechanisms that could be used. But currently, it seems the banks and credit card companies find it cheaper to write off the losses than invest in better systems.

Good grief. Climate change IS caused by CO2. But you don't believe it is; so why on Earth would you think it is a good idea to spend money on reducing it? That is about as intelligent as an adult who knows the tooth fairy doesn't exist but puts an extracted tooth under their pillow expecting to find sixpence in the morning.

The amount of crackpottery does seem to be proportional to the "purity" of the science. Physics attracts the most, life sciences fewer, the arts fewer still. Although, within each field, the same topics come up again and again ("Shakespeare didn't write the plays" is a recurring classic in literature crankery). And the symptoms and behaviour of cranks in every field are pretty much the same.

If climate change isn't caused by CO2 then what is the point wasting money on projects like that?

So no evidence to support your claim then. And yet you feel able to criticise the mountains of evidence available in climate science. Really? And yet you think that politically-biased journalists and fiction writers can predict it better than scientists. On the other had, science does seem to do a pretty good job of predicting most of it. The motions of planets, the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields, the behaviour of fundamental particles, the function of genes, the weather, ... You just think one specific area of science is unpredictable because it offends your political ideology. The basic physics has been known for well over 100 years. The science that makes your computer work is significantly younger. So presumably you don't believe in computers, either. And why is the age of the Earth relevant? Well, apart from the fact that it gives us millennia of data to use in understanding climate and how it changes. She seems to have done a good job of picking up the dishonest rhetorical tricks used by "journalists" writing for the Daily Mail.

Just pointing out that droughts, for example, already occur is as inane as saying "the climate changes naturally". The point (which you oh-so-cleverly avoided) is that there is a risk that droughts will become more severe. Do you have any evidence that these risks are impossible? By this sort of logic, one could say there is no point in medical treatment because people die, sooner or later, anyway. You have evidence for that, presumably? (And, I hope, better evidence than that used for climate change. Or is this "mere speculation and exaggeration"?) You mean there is a correlation between the behaviour of teenagers and drought? But climate change may increase the number and severity of drought years. And, therefore, increase the risk of fires. But once again, you are totally ignoring the science in favour of soundbites. Pathetic. Of course not. You clearly think that the uninformed opinions of miscellaneous liars, fiction writers and right-wing politicians are more important than objective data about the natural world.

You appeared to be saying that the spin of the second particle was undetermined until it was measured. They might be empirically equivalent but one is consistent with the quantum theory and the other isn't.

Make your mind up. You were talking about dimensions, not physical objects: But, based on that comment, it seems you don't know what "dimension" means, anyway. So your opinions on the subject are pretty much moot.

This is where you are going wrong. It only takes one measurement to make the spin of the pair determined because they are entangled. That is what entangled means: both particles are described by a single wavefunction. Any measurement applies to the pair, not just to one. That is what theory tells us (and what EPR objected to). That is what Bell's theorem tests. Adn that is what experiment is consistent with. If you want to invent a new form of quantum theory where this is the case, then good luck.

That is another stunningly incoherent argument. You think it is OK for someone to investigate human effects of pollution and get improvements made as a result. But you think it is wrong to study the human effects of CO2 release because that might lead to action to make things better. And you still haven't addressed any questions about the science. Just gone off on increasingly bizarre tangents. Do you have any examples of these "outrageous predictions"? Or is this yet another grossly dishonest and offensive strategy to avoid the discussing the science and your irrational beliefs?