I'm here to learn and educate
Well, you just put your finger on your biggest problem, Merlin. First, in order to educate people, you have to know more about the subject you are lecturing them on than they do.
Alright - I have that part done without any contest; next point.
Your field of study is physics, it isn't climatology. In other words, this is not an area of your expertise, dear.
My expertise is theoretical and analytical processes. I happen to be in the field of physics.
I actually remember the first time you and I debated on global warming, about eight months ago, at the other forum. There, like here, you made the assertion that there were legions of scientists who didn't believe in it, but were too afraid to speak out about it (actually, a pretty transparent point since there is no proof).
You need to re-read. That's not what I said, therefore it is not my assertion. Try again, dear.
I told you about the Science Magazine study, wherein, something like over 928 abstracts were studied. In them, not one took issue with the idea that human beings were causing global warming. So you produced a selection that you claimed did, apparently not thinking that any of us would bother reading any of them.
I have explained this to you at least 5 times now. In that you refuse to acknowledge what I said
literally, and instead choose to believe what you
THOUGHT I was trying to say, you are no better than Profeus. No matter how many times you incorrectly dissect my intentions, you cannot cast doubt on my actions - they are written down, in the public domain, and have not changed since they were typed. Why don't you go copy and paste the entire argument for the crowd to read? That would certainly settle the dispute... Clearly showing that I have done no such thing that you assert.
Turns out that not only didn't any of them take issue with GW, some of them actually were written by some of the main proponents of the Global Warming theory, guys like Michael Mann, who created the "Hockey Stick." When I called you on that, you fled the discussion and we didn't see you again for months.
As I said - You refuse to acknowledge what I
ACTUALLY SAID, and continue maligning me based upon what you
thought I was going to say. Now you are too deep in it to just admit that you misunderstood. I guess "My Bad" isn't in your vocabulary. That's unfortunate; it's often a welcome addition when dealing with evolving science (as I am well aware). I left the discussion for only one reason: The mutal admiration society that had developed made it impossible to interject fact into the debate. And being attacked for being correct gets really old - specifically when you wind up retreading the same nonsense - day in & day out. You, and those like you, are a dime-a-dozen on any of the college campuses I visit. Facts have no bearing upon your decision making process and you don't care if there is proof to support the assertions. We refer to people like you as "Big Picture People". "Don't bother Big Picture People with details, it only confuses their ability to believe what they choose to." I realize that sounds like I'm being intentionally spiteful, but I'm really not - It simply "Is what it Is".
You're not an expert at global warming, Merlin. You're certainly not in a position to lecture anyone here on it, and if you were honest about it, you would admit that the prognostications for what will happen again will be getting worse, not better.
I am an expert on theoretical modelling, analytical statistical analysis, chemistry, physics, physical modelling, algorithmic computer simulation and history; each of which are fundamental to the discussion. I also participate in 2 university forums on the subject and have contributed to the two prevailing theoretical models of hydrodynamic influence on meterological interruption within the atmosphere. I dare say that, not only am I an expert in the field of research, I am also in a position to influence the research behind the final products. You shouldn't make assumptions...
As for things getting worse - not better: That's sort of off the topic. Keep in mind that I have never disputed that any of GW is not happening. Only that the understanding of why is unproven. Attack my intentions however you wish, but I'll bet money that my record of environmentalism and planetary stewardship is unmatched by those of you who would paint me as a: SUV driving, toxic waste dumping neo-con. Remember Allison, my words are in the public domain - and they have been consistently in support of environmentalism as a whole, with a focus on planetary stewardship. Remember the farting in a warm car analogy?
All-in-all, aren't you and your friends a little tired of doing nothing about what you hold so much hope in? Seriously now, you spend time papering each other over with cuts & pastes from the internet, but I don't see you discussing the most important topic (if you believe that Albert is right). What to do! Why don't you and the others here join in on the creation of a new X-Prizesque competition for green (carbon-free) tech? Form a team and go for it. I'm a member of our university's team (who is supporting three other confirmed contestants) in an inter-scholastic competition for fuel-cell research, clean atomic power generation and transmission of power through low (or no) loss lines. Lobby your politicians to adopt a "Manhattan Project mindset" in the search for fossil-fuel elimination. Start a grass-roots-movement for it. So far, it sounds like there's a lot of talk on the subject, but little action.
I see myself as a catalyst for change. Love me or hate me - I get results; whether I inspire people to action or guilt them into it. I don't care how they come, as long as they do. Maybe you should think of me as an advocate for 'green' laboring to mobilize the supporters to
ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING! It doesn't matter if I think man is to blame for global climate change anymore. Enough people in the world do, but they think driving a Prius and hoping their government will do something about it is enough. Theses same people chew through wood and paper products like a beaver, leave their (albeit flourescent) lights on 24 hours a day, water their lawn religiously, purchase tons of alkaline batteries (cause they are cheaper), fail to fix leaky faucets, consume bottled water by the gross ton, eat fast (or prepared) food, purchase (instead of rent) DVDs, burn CDs and DVDs, use aerosols, and recycle only what (and when it) is convenient.
You see, Allison, I'm not just railing against the misunderstanding of GCC's cause - I'm trying to get people to
really think globally and act locally. I want people to think that the problem is manageable and that they can effect it with their individual actions. You do it your way, by creating this massive monster that most people are intimidated by, and the population polarizes. I'd like to bring the discussion back to the "fart in a warm car". I would have the public ignore the massive monster and focus on its minions and foot-soldiers, pollution, toxicity, consumption and deforestation. All easily managable; individually, as long as the spector of doom isn't looming over them while they are separating their papers from their plastics at the recycle bin. History tells us that mankind reacts predictively when exposed to psychological stresses. They, go overboard trying to change it, ignore it, or adapt slowly with it and follow the changes. This last one is called evolution and requires that most of the life dies out with the changes (I vote against this method on purely selfish grounds). Predominently, history tells us that we react (collectively) in the worst way - We ignore it until it's too late, and evolution saves a wee bit of us to proliferate again later.
Manage our expectations, measure our task and monitor our progress - that is my motto for every trial and simulation I have the pleasure of adminstering. I have a proven record of success because of it. Ever been asked, "How do you eat an elephant?"
One bite at a time....
