| Locknuts said: Wow you're making some big assumptions about where I sit on this issue. I am more than happy to listen to what you are saying if you hold the qualifications you claim to. Physicists are exactly the types of people I try to learn from. Just so you know I don't claim to be an expert either, but I certainly don't listen to 'anti-science' people, whatever they are. I don't just read the assessment report by the IPCC, I also try to read as many actual papers on the subject as possible. My understanding is obviously limited, but the easiest sources of information on climate change are proving to be the least accurate (media whether right or left wing, politicians etc).
|
I don't recommend reading the publications. Although they're one of the most direct sources of information, they're typically filled with specialized terminology and methodology that can be easily misinterpreted. I'd bet that most post-graduate physics students and professors would not be able to understand the papers without extended exposure or study of the subject. If you're highy motivated to understand atmospheric physics and chemistry, I recommend starting with basic physics and chemistry and then tailoring your future studies to your desired field. You may not be able to understand the papers, but you'll be able to rely on your own knowledge and intuition more when you're faced with a questionable media headline or even a forum post. The best thing that we can do is educate ourselves so that we can make logical conclusions and find the proper resources when we're faced with questions outside our grasp.
