Strange

You mistake looking at pictures with scientific evidence. Where is your mathematical model? Where is the data? where is the analysis?

You are the one not providing evidence. So it is your denialism that is faith based. Scientists have evidence. No one is claiming this. So this is a straw man fallacy.

New physics requires evidence.

Worth noting that the first attempts to calculate these effects go back to Arrhenius in 1896. Since then we have made much more accurate measurements and made a lot of progress in understanding the complex interactions (including positive and negative feedbacks) that take place between the Earth, its oceans and atmosphere.

As I said, there are thousands of papers and vast quantities of evidence. It is not really suitable for a post on a forum. I'm sure you could find the evidence, if you wanted to. So I assume you are not interested in the science. As this is a very specific claim, I think it is reasonable to ask you for the evidence for it. Please provide a reference to published science that says this. Of course it has. Describing the methodologies used is an important part of a scientific paper. As you would know if you had any interest in the subject. Not all scientists agree. The evidence is verified. You have made a series of unsupported and/or false statements. And yet you make accusations against scientists who have spent years gathering and analysing data.

Many different techniques are used to date ice cores (as with other techniques like tree rings). It is not just about counting layers. A good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating

It is difference because there is a reason for the scientific consensus: the evidence. As there is a large amount of evidence, and many thousands of papers published on the subject, it is not really practical to summarise it all here. If you have questions about specific papers or evidence, then you could ask those here. The difference now is the scale and rate of change. Here is a good summary of the changes of 20,000 years (lei since the last glaciation): https://xkcd.com/1732/ The climate has been looked at over much longer than 150 years.

Well, because they are dealing with anti-hydrogen, the ions are just the protons and electrons! So yes, they do hold those in traps and then combine them to create the atoms. They then measure the properties (spectrum, mass, etc) of the atoms. So the measurements they are making require the (neutral) atoms.

You even make the same careless spelling mistakes as Beecee!

Of course not. This is science. However, there are good arguments against and zero for. So, you know, balance of probabilities. Totally missed the point. The reason "pushes" is in quotes is because it is not really pushing. These are called "scare quotes" and are used to indicate a word or phrase is being used to mean something other than the usual meaning. In other words: nothing is pushing. A "neutral shell" would be even less effective at shielding matter and antimatter. Oe of the challenges of the CERN ALPHA project s finding ways to contain anti-matter long enough to measure its properties. We can contain anti-protons or anti-electrons because they have electric charge. Anti-matter atoms are neutral so, even when kept really cold, they will eventually hit the sides f the vessel and be annihilated. You are invoking some sort of magic material that interacts with neither matter or anti-matter and is either solid enough to keep them apart of uses some sort of magic force to keep them apart. Then how does it "push" the water on the far side of the Earth? (And, yes, it is exactly your argument.) Of course there is that possibility. And it would be very exciting because it would require masses of new physics to explain how it could be there and be undetected. Never going to happen though ... I am not going to jump on a runaway train heading for a cliff edge just because it might take us on a magic journey. It is allowed. We are discussing it.

OK. But water at any temperature above 0ºC does not freeze. It has to cool to freezing point before it freezes. The observation is that hot water can cool to freezing temperature faster than cold water (the Mpemba effect - see link). As far as I know, this has still not been fully explained. It may be that there are multiple factors involved. So one of the explanations does suggest that higher temperatures could create more of the types of hydrogen bonds that can act as nucleation centres: (From your link)

That is either very funny or scarily pedantic, I'm not sure which! I'm not sure energy needs to be provided to cause hydrogen bonds to form. If anything, the higher temperature (and speed of the molecules) would break the bonds. Which is, I assume, part of the reason why ice melts and water boils.

Exactly, evidence can lead to a proof (to whatever standard is required in, say, a court of law). Evidence is something like "there is a fingerprint". But it is the interpretation of that evidence, and all the other evidence, that can lead to a proof. Even, "we found a fingerprint of the suspect on the murder weapon" isn't proof that the suspect is the murderer. There may be other evidence that proves the suspect was out of the country at the time. Or that explains why the fingerprint could be there.

But I think you can only see the galactic centre from the Southern Hemisphere. True. Tooth decay was relatively rare, but wear from stone ground grains was more of a problem. Although they would not have had the modern American obsessively straight and white teeth we see so often in movies!

I have never seen them described as empty space. Areas of lower density and without the large scale structures such as galaxies and filaments. But only very poor quality journalism would report them as being empty. You have been given multiple reasons, by various people, why it is highly unlikely there is antimatter in the voids and why it is even more unlikely that antimatter has negative mass. Did you miss the fact that it says "pushes" in quotes? That is important. Would consider the fact that the Moon raises tides on the opposite side of the Earth by "pushing" the water to be evidence of the Moon being made of antimatter? Because that is pretty much your argument. Excellent point. As these simulations do not include antimatter with negative mass but do include dark matter and reproduce the sort of structures we see, says it all. No, the void exists because of an absence of matter, not because some magic has pushed the matter away.

Yes.

Then why do we call it the Galaxy or Milky Way after the Ancient Greek and Latin (Via Lattea) names?

Again, not too surprising. And not evidence of antigravity or antimatter.

So it has no particular relevance to supporting your case here? It is another paper on voids. We know voids exist. So ... meh.

You are suggesting some new unknown type of matter that doesn't interact with either matter or antimatter but is able to hold them apart? That is pretty extraordinary new physics. We are well beyond suggesting that antimatter has antigravity. Especially when it is to explain something that is explained perfectly well by standard physics. What specifically is interesting about it? I don't really want to read a 6 page paper and have to guess why you posted it.

If the shell is made of matter, it will annihilate with the antimatter inside. If the shell is made of antimatter, it will annihilate with the matter outside. And that does not need antimatter, or even antigravity to explain it. Otherwise the papers and article reporting it would be screaming "antigravity" and "antimatter". They are, not surprisingly, silent on the subject.

So no evidence for antimatter, then. Just Villata's assumptions and your guesswork. If the voids were full of antimatter then it would be obvious because of the annihilation where it met with matter.

And a compass!

Photons do not normally interact with other photons. However, they do interact with charged particles. That is the electromagnetic interaction. I don't know if you can really make a direct comparison like that. It will depend on the distance, for example: "At the range of 10−15 m (1 femtometer), the strong force is approximately 137 times as strong as electromagnetism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction) I don't understand the question. The force holding the nucleus together is the residual strong force (which "leaks out" of the protons and neutrons). It falls off rapidly with distance, which is why large nuclei become unstable. What evidence do you have for a charge 3.3 times larger than the electron?

But electromagnetic interactions can't explain how the atomic nucleus is held together (the strong force), why beta decay occurs (the weak force) or gravity. An electromagnetic wave has no charge, so a bigger problem would be why electrons do have charge if they are made of electromagnetic waves. And why they have mass.