You've never seen an explanation for that? Really? How hard did you look?

Diffusion, convection, mixing. All basic processes that are well understood for fluids.

If you put a sugar cube in water and stir it, why do the heavy sugar molecules end up at the top of the mug, far from the bottom where the cube started?

Also, you seem to be doubting the fact that CFCs are in the stratosphere. You think it's a guess? They can be detected so we know they are there, and unfortunately for those who want to be science deniers, there are no natural sources of CFCs, so whatever is up there was as a result of human factors.

No, you were just flat out incorrect.

The science behind how the ozone layer works, how it is formed, why it thins at the poles, and why CFCs are damaging to it is very well understood.

You "common sensing" it out on the back of an envelope doesn't trump the actual science.

It does not have a integral GPS unit. It requires your iPhone to provide location information.

It does have internal storage for music, apps, and so on, and other sensors that the phone does;t have (like pulse) and some that replicate function (gyro, accelerometers).

You joke, but there is an app on the store that does literally nothing (other then opening) and costs $999.99. The entire purpose is to demonstrate that you are rich.

Your card details are not stored. A hash of your card number is stored. This hash is sent to the bank via the merchant along with a transaction ID and the device ID. The merchant never knows what the card number is, and it's not kept on the phone. Only the bank knows what the number is.

For this to work you have to verify the phone with the bank first (and share the hash with them). From then on, no one else needs to know your card number - including Apple.

Flip it over.

It's symmetrical about the x axis.

If you cut his finger off, yes.

The bank has your card number.

The way I believe it works, based on the video today, is that you take an image of your card with your phone and it combines it with a device ID and then creates a hash, then you need to do something with your bank to have it added to the apple pay system. Cue said something like "verify" - but he did not give specifics. I assume that this hash is given to your bank somehow during this step. From then on, payments are made using this hash, and it's a direct transaction between merchant and bank.

They were very clear that the card number is not stored on the phone itself - he said specifically "if your phone is lost or stolen then you can use find my iPhone to disable payments made using it and because your card details are not on the device, the thief doesn't have that either".

Right, someone else tried that argument with a guy doing a seance, but he was at least smart enough to log in first.

The crucial difference between the magnet gas mileage person and science is that the scientist could actually back up their claims - it's just difficult to explain quickly and simply to a non-scientist. Of course, if climate science were a sham like magnet man, then other scientists would be able to demonstrate it.

The fact that you think "an expert in a scientific field can't easily explain it to me" = "he's a lying scammer" demonstrates an enormous lack of understanding about how experts work.

Did you say the same thing to your heart surgeon, or the guy who wrote the Linux kernel, or the guy sequencing your genome, or the guy developing the drugs that make your quality of life better?

Ah, the old "they're being paid off" argument.

If climate scientists are in it for the "hush money" or bribery or whatever you think it is via their salaries then I have a bridge to sell you. There are much easier ways to make much more money with that skill set.

Right, and you can do all that with the climate data if you like - it will just take you a little longer to do because it's not a simple as an ACL tear.

No one is hiding that data, they're just telling you that understanding it is non-trivial. This does not make it incorrect, however.

No, you believe them because they're an expert in their field and they agree with 97% of the other experts in their field.

It's a complex system that is not possible to understand without a lot of background in the field - like open heart surgery, or programming the SSL library. At some point down the line in day to day life you're going to have to trust that the person who is an expert knows what they are talking about.

Of course, the expert could explain to you how they reached their conclusion, but you'd quickly get lost because they would assume that you knew various other important building blocks necessary to understand it - like a background in science, for example. Just because he can't explain it to a layperson in a few short sentences doesn't mean that they're lying. It *might*, but at that point you seek assurances from other people who are experts in the field.

This is not about religion - and that fact that you are trying to paint it as so is a huge non-sequitur. Religious beliefs cannot be proved. Scientific evidence can be - but often it is not as trivial as opening a box and saying "here it is". That does not make it wrong, just complicated.

Do you say the same thing to your doctor before they perform major surgery on you, or do you trust that they are a professional in their field and that 97% of other doctors would agree with them on how to perform your operation?

If you want to prove them wrong, the data is available.

Put it this way, do you think that if the data supported those special interests who have paid a lot of money to discredit climate scientists that they wouldn't use it to actually do so?

The beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't care if you don't believe it, it simply is. The data is all there.

I still find it fascinating that people believe that one particular discipline of scientists - not all scientists, specifically one narrow discipline - is involved in a "pseudoreligious political" conspiracy.

What here is more likely? That they're right, or that 97% of all climate scientists on earth in every country, every university, every company, every government, every society are all in lockstep under some grand master plan to... what? Funnel small amounts of money to them?

Even if we take the ludicrous position that every government has decided to work together in perfect unison to run a grand conspiracy to generate tax money/green policy/some other right wing bogeyman de-la-jeure, how on earth are they going to keep all the scientists to go along with it? It sure isn't money - have you seen the salary of a scientist? The easy money is working for ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers. The money on the anti-climate-change side is vastly higher than it is on the "regular science" side. There's no way that 97% of scientists in the field would go along with it - all it would take is for one to be tempted by the dump truck full of cash to blow the conspiracy open, and that hasn't happened - despite all the attempts to discredit climate scientists.

It's not even as if the data they are using is somehow hidden. This is data collected globally from thousands of sources and hundreds and hundreds of people available to anyone who wants to study it.

The fact that you are classifying an entire discipline of science as "pseudoreligious" says it all really. You disagree with 97% of scientists on this issue, but you're not sure why (or you lack the arguments as to why) except that you've been told they are all involved in some conspiracy, so you make it into some political ideology battle.

I guess I should trust the 3% of programmers who say that there are NSA backdoors in the Linux kernel. I mean, some guy on 4chan said it and I believe him. Those pseudoreligious zealots on slashdot are just trying to get me to use Linux so the government can spy on me.

Anecdotes are not data.

What does the thermometer (that is placed in the same place for it's life) say over the course of 50 years?

One data point is not enough. Nor is starting your measurement conveniently in 1998 and then saying "look the trend is level!" without showing that the overall global trend is very definitely upwards with cyclical dips.

Ah, that old chestnut. When you pick 1998 as your starting point, you do exactly what you accuse climate scientists of doing - cherry picking your data to suit your argument.

Take a look at the global trend over the entire lifetime of the data.

What the propaganda has convinced you of is that there's no warming trend because it started with a record high year as the origin. Zoom out on the graph (the entire data set that the cherry picked section comes from looks... somewhat different)