Strange

So it isn't that you haven't been given the opportunity, you just think it would take too long to explain? Perhaps you should write it up and submit it to a scientific journal, then.

Do you want to do this now?

I don't know where you are but performing this sort of experiment requires appropriate licensing (and measures to ensure there is no unnecessary suffering, etc). If you don't even know how to conduct such a study, it seems unlikely you would be able to conform to the regulations.

Please feel free to go ahead now.

Please go ahead now...

Actually, you were repeatedly asked to explain this but refused to do so. <shrug> wevs.

What evidence do you have that the current understanding of the structure of CO2 is incorrect?

You are the one making claims. So you are the one who needs to provide supporting evidence. You could start by answering the questions from hypervalent-iodine...

I (and others) have explained in detail what appears to be wrong with your idea and the methodology. You have chosen to ignore that. <shrug>

Is this "colorology" - the visual equivalent of numerology? Or maybe just yet another example of apophenia. "whatever theory", you need to think about why species have particular colours. And, as you mention carrots, you do know they used to be white? Or maybe an app where you give it an RGB value and it tells you if you are facing a lion or a potato.

It depends why people stand up against the consensus. Just doing it out of a sense of perversity is not good science. Doing it based on evidence is. The thing is, there never was any evidence or reason to think there was an aether - other than "common sense". So as soon as it was shown that (a) there was no need for it and (b) there was no evidence for it then the ideas was abandoned. Oddly, the few diehard cranks who insist there is an aether (for no obvious reason) use the same "battling against the consensus" argument to say they should be taken seriously. And when it came to some aspects of quantum theory, Einstein was wrong. In the end, consensus is result of science, not the reason to accept a particular theory.

That is the trouble with "experiments" on youtube. They are completely uncontrolled and have no more credibility than a magic trick. You don't know that he doesn't have some nearby source of varying electric/magnetic fields nearby that is inducing the current. He might have a faulty voltmeter. He might be fooling himself or deliberately cheating. Who knows. (And who cares. If this is a real thing, then it needs to be done - and replicated by others - under laboratory conditions.)

Simplistic, not shown to be true, and irrelevant.

The former sounds like it would be better in Social Science or Media (except there isn't a section for those). So maybe The Lounge or Politics. It certainly isn't anything to do with science. You might want to start with an introduction to who he is and why you think he is so important. (Is? Or was? I assume he is still around?) The latter will need a lot more scientific support than you have ever provided before.

Interestingly, adding "gore" to that search mainly returns research on newspaper reporting (especially tabloids), public perceptions, etc. (I imagine the same would be true if you added the name of any prominent individuals or tabloids who are outspoken for or against the topic.)

The evidence says he (or his theory) is right. Of course, Einstein wasn't always right... https://xkcd.com/1206/

Mainly to denialists, as far as I can tell. As I say, I would never have heard of him if denialists didn't keep trotting him out as their preferred expert as a way of avoiding the science.

Then why aren't evolutionary changes just random? What causes species to evolve to fit their environments? What evidence do you have for this? As we see changes in DNA over generations (II) what prevents this affecting evolution? As we see selection take place (III) what prevents this affecting evolution?

Then why do you keep brining him up? (I would barely be aware of him if it weren't for you and your ilk.)

People have always had multiple interests. It would be interesting to see how Brian Cox would appear on this list: pop musician? writer? TV presenter? Or maybe physicist... But, as others have noted, things were different in the days of "gentleman scientists".

Quite. Selection is only part of the story. You also need heritable characteristics and a source of variation in the population. I haven't seen what is novel in this idea.

It isn't. It is a variable.

That would be relevant if your criticisms were just of the reporting of the problem. But you are in full-on denial that there is a problem. You are denying the science, so the science is the relevant thing to discuss. The quality of the public debate is a different issue. We can get to that, after you acknowledge that the science is sound. As nobody says that, this is just another (or the same old) straw man argument. You need to learn how to cite, or link to, your sources.

The problem with this wording (to my mind) is that it makes it sound as if force is a product of the acceleration. While there are cases where that is true, it is less obvious than the normal way of stating it. Apart from being grammatically odd this doesn't seem to add anything new. It would also be true if the force was proportional to some function such as the square of the mass. So it is too vague.

Good catch!