Friday, June 13, 2014

Michael Mann's six new lies interviewed the world's most notorious fraudulent climate fearmonger Michael Mann about
Six Things Michael Mann Wants You to Know About the Science of Global Warming.
Well, they mostly spoke in such a way that Michael Mann preached and obediently listened so I shouldn't have called it an interview.

His text is rather incredible. As Roger Pielke Jr observed five years ago, if Michael Mann did not exist, the skeptics would have to invent him.

According to Mann's latest tirade, everyone would be a fearmonger and a demagogue like himself if the public became more familiar with six propositions – various would-be facts and ideas. What are they? Are they true?

1. Climate Scientists are the Real Skeptics

No, they are not. Climate skeptics are known as "skeptics" for a good reason – because they are nothing else than the practitioners of scientific skepticism in the context of the remarkable claims about the climate. Climate fearmongers such as Michael Mann himself are those who are rejecting the rules of the scientific skepticism in a way that is completely analogous to the blunders committed by the advocates of paranormal phenomena and similar things.

Wikipedia defines scientific skepticism as
the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge".
The definition ultimately came from Robert Merton, a sociologist of science. Clearly, the global warming fearmongering maximally violates this definition. The claims are mostly about the future which isn't accessible to empirical research and the claims about the past and present boil down to "one episode of man-made global warming" that is supposed to have started a century ago. Because we are talking about one hypothetical process, one episode, the claims clearly lack reproducibility, too. The climate panic isn't about another ice age – many ice ages would have occurred on Earth in the past. It's about something that is supposed to be, much like Jesus' resurrection, unprecedented.

This problem of the climate alarm is related to another one: the dramatic climate change really diverges from the "certified knowledge" qualitatively. The "certified knowledge" allows one to discuss the weather within climatic conditions that may be approximated as constant even though they are changing in the long run. The climate hysteria wants something dramatically different and it's really its defining, characteristic feature, something that makes it so attractive to many ears. What makes it so attractive is the same feature that makes the climate alarmism contradict the attitudes of scientific skepticism. In other words, climate alarmism is intrinsically unscientific.

More generally, scientific skepticism is summarized by the slogan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Climate alarmism contradicts this attitude because it wants to morph a self-evidently extraordinary claim – that within just a hundred of years, life on Earth will be threatened by climate change as serious as none during the recent tens of millions of years or more – into the new "default assumption" that, like other default assumptions, doesn't require any evidence at all, let alone extraordinary.

Lots of wise essays have been written about the analogies between the climate alarmism and the old-fashioned religions. They have their original sins, scapegoats, the ultimate hell, prophets, moralizing preachers, indulgences, saviors, repentance, blasphemies, and heretics, among many other components. The big claims are not being justified by the empirical data or calculations that one may verify; instead, they mostly boil down to would-be authorities.

Michael Mann's own answer proves that his attitude is the opposite of scientific skepticism when he criticizes skeptics for "denying mainstream science". Something is "mainstream" if one finds sufficiently many people who will endorse it. This has nothing whatever to do with having enough evidence. The beliefs in geocentrism or creationism with all the remarkable things that were needed to defend these beliefs used to be "mainstream science" as well. It was just wrong and totally at odds with the principles of scientific skepticism.

The second paragraph Mann writes about this issue is OK but one may see that none of the rules are actually respected by the climate fearmongers. For example, he ends up by saying that "scientists are always trying to find holes in each other’s proposed ideas, or in their own proposed ideas." But that's exactly the main principle he has denounced just a few sentences earlier when he said that to question the climate hysteria isn't skepticism because "climate hysteria is mainstream science". If it can't be questioned and if it is actually not being questioned, it is no science.

2. The Science of Climate Change is Based on Many Sources of Data and Many Different Methodologies

The idea of a dangerous man-made climate change is not based on any credible data or methodologies. But in general, it is true that the climate science is based on many diverse data and methodologies. But what's completely wrong about Mann's claims here is that it is an advantage. On the contrary, the need to use many different methodologies and ways to acquire data – without seeing winners – is exactly one of the top disadvantages that make the climate science an inferior, soft scientific discipline.

This diversity means nothing else that none of the sources of data and no existing methodology is good enough! If one of them were good enough, it would be extremely unlikely that people would remain ambiguous about the optimal sources of data and the optimal methodologies.

If we want to study particle physics at the experimental energy frontier, close to a \(\TeV\) of energy per particle, we are studying a science that affects many – well, all – processes in Nature and that's what makes it powerful. On the other hand, it's obvious what is the right, general way of studying this physics. On the experimental side, it's particle collisions. One may pretty much derive which particles should collide to gain the maximum amount of information, too. There are no diverse sources because the colliders allowed us to get very far – in energy and accuracy – and it is simply extremely unlikely that two or more different methodologies would get equally far. If the most distant among your schoolmates from the elementary school lives 9,000 miles away from you, it is unlikely that the second one also lives about 9,000 miles – unless they married each other.

Similar comments apply to methodologies. Predictions for real-world experiments are calculated from Feynman diagrams which are pretty much universal and encode perturbative quantum field theory which is a good approximation for all these phenomena. There is no similarly relevant competing methodology (let me include the twistor-based rules etc. to the same package, just to avoid excessively subtle discussions) simply because if two methodologies work pretty much equally well, they must be equivalent.

The impossibility to choose the right methodologies etc. is a symptom of the poor or non-existent accuracy in the climate science in general. This softness, fuzziness, and interdisciplinary character all contribute to the fact that predictions in this discipline are extremely unreliable and may pretty much be summarized as guesswork. This appraisal applies to some types of claims more clearly than to others and the situation may improve in the future but no doubt, the climate science doesn't belong among the hardest sciences today and its features that Michael Mann sells as advantages are actually major culprits or symptoms of the inferior – i.e. less scientific – status of the discipline.

3. The Models Have Proven Accurate

This is just a downright lie. None of the types of model predictions that are relevant for the dangerous man-made climate change debate has ever celebrated a success that can't be considered a coincidence and that one wouldn't be ashamed to describe in detail.

In the last 20 years, the computer technology got vastly better and so would have the climate models if they were in the ballpark of the truth and if the climate scientists were successfully pursuing the scientific method that can converge to the truth ever more accurately. Instead, all the predictions by the climate modelers were getting worse. The discussions about the "global warming hiatus" in the recent 20 years are the most characteristic example of this failure. Nothing about the models really works.

If predictions of the global mean temperature – the least fluctuating quantity related to the "global warming" that one may think of – deviate by 100 percent i.e. completely disagree with the observations (a huge predicted warming vs no warming at all) even after a 20-year averaging of various kinds of noise, it is a spectacular failure. I often feel compassionate about the climate modelers and their advocates who have a really hard job if their job is to pretend that they and their "work" is something else than what it clearly is, namely a pile of worthless distorted šit.

There are computer models related to the atmospheric dynamics that have done some impressive job – including meteorological models predicting the weather for the next 3 days or a week. But there is a difference between one week and 20 or 100 years.

It is fair to say that those who had access to powerful computers had no advantage in predicting anything about the long-term behavior of the atmosphere relatively to those who know enough theory (about the atmospheric dynamics) and only use the pencils and paper. The climate models may have "looked" realistic, like a computer game, but the correlation between their outcomes and the actual behavior of the climate turned out to be non-existent.

It's not really hard to understand why it is so. A computer is only useful if we need to make many calculations that are too much for a scientist with a brain, a pencil, and a piece of paper – but which may still be trusted. That's why meteorological models are good for forecasts of the weather for a few days. These programs have to deal with the interactions of several vortices and changing winds and for a while, their dynamics may be trusted. But the long-term behavior of these atmospheric patterns is chaotic and small errors in the initial state or the calculation lead to completely wrong predictions. And whenever this chaotic behavior averages out, there must exist an effective theory where the chaotic phenomena are absent from scratch, and predictions based on this effective theory may be done with a pencil and a piece of paper again.

That's why you should expect that the situation will really not change and climate models will remain useless as a device to produce climate predictions. At any rate, they are useless today. They are only being used by advocates of a particular preconception – in this case a dangerous climate change in the future – to make their claims look more scientific than they are. However, showing a seemingly realistic computer game (one that a random observer may confuse with the actual reality) is something else than producing correct scientific predictions simply because the observer's "feelings of realism" have no reason to be correlated with the actual accuracy of the predictions: the observer has no idea about the right answer.

Mann mentions predictions of the impact of volcano eruptions. They were in the ballpark of the truth but these estimates may be made without computers. Moreover, there are similar general predictions of "some sensitivity" that didn't work comparably well.

4. If Anything, Global Warming is Probably Worse Than Scientists Say

If anything, global warming is an even clearer non-problem than what even the real climate scientists – the climate skeptics – are willing to admit. If anything, even the probability of a significant global cooling is much higher than the typical climate skeptics tend to guess.

To defend his comment that "AGW is worse than thought", Michael Mann cherry-picks a random study that says so, and chooses to trust it. But that's exactly how science doesn't work and cannot work. Science can't be based on comparative literature and cherry-picking of literature. In fact, it is not based on the selection of literature at all. Genuine science is based on calculations comparing hypotheses with the empirical data.

When we insist on the scientific method – instead of the method of trying to silence scientists by intimidation and efforts to make everyone worship third-class scientists and downright fraudsters who must be the "authorities" (and, according to Mann, the more unhinged and hysterical alarmist a person is, the more credible "authority" he is) – the answer to the question becomes totally clear. From an ensemble of climate models most frequently used by the "climate science community", about 98 percent overstated the warming in the last 2 decades or so where they could have been validated, often by a factor of 3 or higher. All of them got a wrong sign of the temperature change for the last decade.

In science, it doesn't matter at all that these models occupied 98% of the supercomputers' memory or the brains of those who are paid as climate scientists. A vast majority of them have been proven wrong so they must be abandoned. The broader theories aligned with these falsified predictions have to be eliminated. If climate science were a meritocratic discipline, like the true and hard scientific disciplines, the proponents of the dangerous climate change would have been (almost?) completely eliminated many years ago, too. However, the climate science community has become something completely different: a mafia of dishonest left-wing activists and crooks who know that they're lying 24 hours a day but their lies are found convenient by the governments to increased their power which is why none of these crooks and criminals, not even Michael Mann himself, has ever been properly punished or fired.

The climate alarmists are not a part of the scientific community. They are a well-organized mafia. What makes them more influential isn't the increased accuracy of their claims but the increased hysteria behind their claims and the strengthened intimidation of everyone else.

5. A Scientific Consensus Isn’t Like a Popularity Contest

The measurement of consensus is always a popularity contest and proper science simply never uses such tools to answer any questions. At most, consensus among people who are expected to be more qualified could be more likely to be more accurate than consensus in the broadest public. However, it is never guaranteed to be so and it is never known how much expertise is actually needed for a person to provide the right answers to a certain class of questions. The expertise of a selected community may still be insufficient so it's easy for such a community to be "mostly wrong". The history of science is full of such examples.

Moreover, the selection one adds by switching from the broader public to the climate change community may add some expertise in average (although way too many "non-professionals" are much more competent than way too many "professional" climate scientists) but it adds much more bias. The bulk of the climate science community wants these claims about a dangerous climate change to be believed because these claims are what has increased their funding by a factor of ten or twenty – ten or twenty times – in the last 20 years or so. So like many other people, they don't want to throw away 90 or 95 percent of their funding. And they don't want to be arrested which some of them, including Michael Mann, surely will be as soon as the neverending brainwashing by the lies about a dangerous looming climate change will really stop. It has slowed down but the kind of an as clear end to this disease as I expect hasn't materialized yet.

This bias and lack of scientific integrity is making the community's guesses about the future climate much more inaccurate than whatever their increased expertise relatively to the public could add in the positive direction. I refuse to read the whole 9-paragraph rant by a Michael Mann that is full of cursing about "contrarians" (the climate religious bigots' word for the "heretics") and similar ideological trash. I prefer to extend my patience concerning the date when this particular crook is finally placed on an electric chair.

6. Climatologists are Beginning to Recognize That They Have to Speak Up

Some of them, like Dick Lindzen, have realized it for 25 years or so. Marc Morano had the list of roughly 1,000 scientists who would follow but the climate scientists who are beginning to speak up today should in no way be considered pioneers. Of course that Michael Mann turned all this question upside down. He is pretending that corrupt crooks like himself who have been paid tens of billions of dollars have been dissidents who couldn't speak so far and the situation is finally changing. Very funny, give me a break. The alarmed climate scientists were the antipodal opposites of dissidents who would have to be afraid of speaking. They were paid tens of billions of dollars exactly because the kind of stuff they could say was extremely convenient for an octopus that began to spread in the mainstream political system.

If these corrupt climate scientists – people paid with the knowledge that they're likely to promote climate alarm – haven't sufficiently promoted alarm in the past, it's because most of them still had some traces of integrity and tens of billions of dollars simply weren't enough to make them constantly emit the same downright lies as Michael Mann loves to emit on a daily basis because the strength of his stomach and the reservoir of his immorality is always higher than previously thought.


  1. Lubos, the probability that Mann or anyone like him would ever be arrested must be small. Even if he were arrested, the probability of criminal conviction would be small. The idea that he might be executed is just ridiculous. You sound like a Soviet person laboring under a misconception about the West.

    My own fantasy for a long time has been that we get an abrupt descent into an ice age, and Al Gore is found frozen to death in his driveway one morning because he went out too early to pick up the newspaper. Of course, we'd die, too, but hopefully not so early as to miss the Gore freezing.

  2. Love your fantasy. I agree that Mann will likely go scott-free, but I don't think it's a soviet mindset to believe it would be more just if he were held accountable for his public dishonesty. Shouting 'fire!' in a theater when there is no fire is a crime, because there are consequences to that announcement, panicked people fleeing, a lot of commotion and disruption without any need for such behavior. The global warming alarmists are doing a bigger verson of yelling 'fire!' in a non-burning theater and they are trying to persuade governments to adopt extremely harmful economic policies. They keep doing it because there is no downside for them, and there ought to be one.

  3. This CAGW business is way past the point of rational discussion now. It'll just have to play out in other ways.

    It's the same thing with the EU, courts of human rights, debt explosion, anti-'racism' and all the other dangerous nonsense infecting the West these days.

    When I was a boy all those historical religious wars, witch hunts, inquisitions, economic/political disasters (tulip mania, South Sea Bubble, potato famine) seemed almost impossible to believe except that they actually happened. That they were a thing of a lunatic past which could never now be repeated seemed axiomatic. (Of course it never occurred to me that the fact that Hitler had only recently been stomping across Europe and that Joe Stalin and his successors were still thriving were just similar current manifestations — as I said, I was a boy and these were simply too close for that kind of perspective.)

    Well, that thinking was dumb.

    And so was my thinking when I couldn't believe so many people would actually vote for bliar. Similarly, I was completely surprised when obummer was elected.

    So it seems I get most things completely wrong. Not a good track record.

    I blame rational thinking.

    SOLUTION: On balance I think these things are are much easier to understand if one doesn't have the faintest clue as to what's going.

  4. What do you think of the expanding earth theory ( And this recent item(

  5. Dear Smoking Frog, a real ice age will come sometime about the year 60,000 AD

    so by dreaming about an ice age that will do what the law enforcement forces should do with the likes of Michael Mann, you sound like a North Korea who was held in a hole for his whole life.

    There won't be any ice age just like there won't be a global warming worth any hassle, OK?

  6. Somewhere I came across that this joker is now a Distinguished Professor. To me this is unambiguous evidence that the climate science community is corrupt.

  7. This PC is so common nowadays.
    Legitimized by political and hyperbole advocating pseudo-science, especially also in the social "sciences".
    Some call it cultural marxism. It corrupts about everything, including giving birth to the gender racism injecting feminist cult with deliberately fabricated big lies - the same way.
    Real sience seeking real truth is somehow *the* enemy for this type of indoctrination which seeks to get funding and legitimately institutionalized.
    Didn't we witness such, but abusing different sets of values, at a different former time?

  8. kashyap vasavadaJun 13, 2014, 4:56:00 PM

    Nice review Lubos. I think most of us will agree with your statement that one has to give up reality and keep locality. But the suggestion that certain kind of super positions (or entanglements) may have advantage in quantum computers, may be independent of this debate about locality and reality. Do you agree with this interpretation of your blog? Do they already suggest these magic ones?

  9. Professor Dr. Angela Davis, UC Santa Cruz. The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote.

    OTOH, you can make a lot of money sacrificing virgins. The challenge is convincing the virgins lest they undignify the ceremony.

  10. Yup, Kashyap, I don't want to contradict any of these things. Magic state distillation is still due to earlier, more famous authors.

    Quite generally, the usefulness of some states is an engineering and not physics question. It's like the claim that wheels with gears are more useful than others in the space of shapes of solid objects in classical mechanics. That's great but being useful is about the applications, not about the underlying science.

  11. The expansion or contraction of the Earth is more or less calculable. I am pretty sure that the dominant effects are earthquake-related events and all of them tend to shrink the Earth in order to make it more compressed, to use the holes more efficiently, and to make it more exactly spherical - or minimizing the gravitational potential energy.

    It's plausible that we're at the stage of being able to measure such things. But most of the seismic shifts are local and "random" and the trend towards a shrinking Earth is only manifest when they're evaluated in a large enough statistical ensemble.

    If the theory is supposed to be so significant that the expansion or shrinking is supposed to explain something obvious or consequential, like ours being taller than our grandparents, or something like that, then my answer is a smile, of course. ;-)

    Incidentally, thermal expansion of the Earth's material exists in principle but the Earth is so heavy that to expand it by a tiny percentage, you would already need an insane amount of heat. Almost no heat is flowing inside the Earth in reality. If you dig yourself miles under the soil, the temperature over there is pretty much constant for millions of years. No reason for an observable contraction or expansion.

    But again, all these effects are nonzero as a matter of principle. They are just extremely tiny.

  12. Bill
    Moyer and Michael Mann there a pair of shysters to draw from. Both
    have over inflated egos and should be canned long ago. They
    a third
    rate intellects with a warped world view. Yes I would
    no propose throwing them in jailed but making them financially
    responsible for their bull headed and fraudulent advocacy. Both
    should have to pay
    back the money they both have fraudulently draw in salary and in
    Mann's case
    grants would be the first step the second would be to pay their
    victims for the bad information they gave and cost those
    money, in the case of Moyer and
    with all socialist
    the taxes that we paid to fix a problem only to have it drain away
    into a bottomless pit call bureaucracy
    and Mann for excessive energy cost we are all forced to pay because
    straw man argument that consuming that energy somehow will affect the
    earth in less
    than a positive manner. The worst part is
    both have been leaches all their lives they have been on the
    taxpayers dime.

  13. Bill Moyers is a long-time devout communist, so it's no surprise that he, or a company headed by him, would provide Mann a speaking platform. Moyers always projects an extremely self-righteous image that sickens me, so when I see him on TV, I have an uncontrollable urge to turn off the TV.

  14. Huh, already the word "contextuality" in particular when applied in the context of physics gives me a headache ...

    Going now to read the text, as I have overlooked it yesterday for some reason ...

  15. Check this out:

    An adjunct professor at American University, Washington DC - has been fired by a progressive think tank after publicly expressing doubtabout man-made global warming.

  16. I've read about it in about 10 mails I have received, and I am unimpressed.

    It's a normal left-wing tank so of course that they instantly fire climate skeptics? I think that a pro-freedom think tank would - and perhaps should - immediately fire someone who would promote climate alarmism or another similar ideology.

  17. You seemed to be on your way to make some open-eyed sense but, disappointingly, it did not happen! :-\ 😟
    Had you ended up even just blaming ignorance and head in the-cloud wishful thinking, instead, I would not have been prompted to whinge at you. %-[ 😕

  18. Just show some one who has never heard of the IPCC or climate change to look at his twitter account. For a normal person this would be an embarrassing disgrace, but for a supposed scientist, its an outrage.

  19. Bill Moyers, as a hack in the LBJ White House, asked the FBI for *gay* information about one of Goldwater's staff members. (violation, even then, of the law)

    POS is what Bill Moyers is.

  20. "Angela Davis", criminal or professor?

    To old people in California, that name has meaning. It's not something to toss around, if you don't have a good point to make.

  21. Lubos,

    Thank you. Those are very good points that you make about the quantification in climate science. The lack of quantification in climate science is an excellent description of the immature state of development of that science.

    Today, in climate science, guesses are hypotheses. And wrong predictions are not falsifications of those hypotheses.
    Desires are good science, in the present science of climate.

  22. Maybe it didn't occur to you that not even during an ice age would anyone freeze to death by going out to pick up the newspaper from his driveway too early in the morning, unless it was due to something which could also freeze him to death during an interglacial, such as falling and being knocked unconscious.

    I know of the 60,000 years. I learned of it from you a couple of years ago. I don't regard it as solid, but that's irrelevant, because my Gore fantasy is only a fantasy.

    I grant you that Mann might go to prison for fraud, but I think it's unlikely. I doubt he could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Your electric chair idea is absurd; we don't have the death penalty for fraud. Are you thinking that maybe Obama or some future statists could get the law changed, or do you think Mann is Chinese?

    If you'd like to put me on your private list of Mann accomplices, I say you're deluded, but I'd be glad to tell you my real name, only not here in a comments thread.

  23. My Gore fantasy is just something I said to someone one day many years ago.

    I don't think we here in the U.S. have a way for Mann to be sent to prison, except on narrow grounds, such as fraud, and the fraud would not be tricking the world into thinking that catastrophic AGW is in the offing. It would be misappropriation of money for some far more specific reason.

    Lubos' electric chair idea is obviously absurd. Maybe it's not Soviet mindset, but that's what it sounds like to me.

  24. Hi Lubos, I think you're missing the point of the paper in question the following sense:

    1. The paper's main result is that the space of states that are rendered as contexual by the Kochen-Speckter theorem are exactly the states that are useful for quantum computation - states such that when used in magic state distillation, the computation cannot be efficiently simulated classically. This is a new and useful result in quantum information and computation. Unlike what you may have perceived the paper doesn't claim to offer anything new about the nature of quantum mechanics.

    2. I think there is a misunderstanding on the use of the word "non-locality". Here the authors are simply referring to Bell's theorem - quantum mechanics is contexual in the sense that Kochen Speckter rules out non-contexual hidden variable models, and quantum mechanics is non-local in the sense that Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variable models. This certainly doesn't say that quantum mechanics is a non-local physical theory, it simply says that Bell's theorem holds. And the statement that "nonlocality is a kind of contexuality" is simply the statement that Bell's theorem can be seen as a special case of the Kochen-Speckter theorem, which is a true statement.

  25. was my comment deleted?

  26. Dear bechira, first, concerning your question elsewhere, new users' comments are premoderated to fight spam (there's a significant amount of it otherwise). Now:

    1. This is really a vacuous tautology. The states that for which a classical representation isn't adequate are the states that are helpful for a device that is defined as being able to do things for which a device using classical physics isn't adequate. Using this formulation, would you agree it is a tautology?

    2. This is just crazy. You can't "redefine" the meaning of whole sentences. The claim that "contextuality [a property said to hold for QM] is a special case of nonlocality [a property that surely doesn't hold in good quantum theories" is just wrong, and you can't redefine the whole sentence for it to mean something completely different that is correct.

  27. Hi Lubos,

    1. The result that contexuality is necessary for quantum (non-classical) computation is not a trivial one, because one has to remember that there are many different notions of classicality, and not all of them are "computational resources" in this sense. This is dicussed, with various useful citations, in the first few sentences in the abstract of the paper in question.

    2. I think the explicit reference to non-locality that you're reacting rather violently to is found in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph:

    "nonlocality of quantum theory is a special case of contexuality"

    To further understand what the authors mean by this one has to simply finish reading the same sentence:

    "where the unexpected context dependence is on the choice of measurement on a remote physical system"

    This describes exactly why Bell's theorem - that there are no local hidden variable models- is a special case of the Kochen-Speckter theorem - that there are no non-contexual hidden variable models. Therefore it is clear to me that this is the unambiguous sense in which the authors are using the word "nonlocality".

  28. With regards to

    'You love to mix up confused interpretations of not-so-important papers and theorems and "redefine whole languages"'

    I have done nothing other than quoting well-accepted theorems, it would be helpful if you would clarify what "confused interpretations" you're talking about here.

    With regards to:

    "you refuse to learn how quantum mechanics actually works"

    That is a personal attack which I do not deserve, I have told you nothing about my physics background.

  29. I hope that you would at least have the decency to approve my response.

  30. I see that you also mention "the violation of locality is needed to understand some experiments" You're certainly not suggesting that these experiments actually violated locality and defeated relativity, therefore I would like to point out that locality referred to here is the exact same sense in which I suggested - quantum mechanics is non-local in the sense that it cannot be reproduced by a local classical model. More generally whenever a quantum information researcher in their right mind speaks of non-locality, this is what they refer to. Nobody is violating relativity here, we're simply dealing with a misunderstanding over terminologies.

  31. I have never written "the violation of locality is needed to understand some experiments

  32. Mitchell McAleerOct 31, 2014, 8:41:00 PM