Well, sounds like Nick is a good guy to get to know. Though his brusque and slightly dismissive tone make that a bit hard from the outset, as well as bandying about assertions without explanations of thought process or even a cursory explanation of where the assertions come from. I mean even a simple statement like "We assume Mars's active magnetosphere days to have been 3.9 Billion years ago, because we believe Mars cooled and hardened around that time. And we believe that because of the numebr of craters we see and a proabilistic model of how often impactors hit the planet as well as how long it takes for wind or water erosion to do its work in forming the formations we see today." would have been handy, so I could understand the thought process behind the assertions and assumptions (some of which, I still think are WRONG, despite having read up on a bit of it and quickly getting up to speed on the basic frameworks).

For someone new coming in to simply be dismissed with a few words and NO explanation of reasoning doesn't do much in the newcomer's eyes as far as giving a lot of credit... My main problem was just with the dismissivity and throwing out "facts" without even cursory back-up. If he were to throw out "facts" on Wikipedia without sourcing the statements or at least citing a relevant well-known-to-laymen fact like "the sun rises in the East" people would cry "notability!" and delete it. So, coming from that recent history, I was just unimpressed (also with the slightly invective/inflammatory attacking statements like "get an education in Mars!" as though I'd done NO reading whatsoever, which is not the case just because I disagree with current theory). He may well turn out to be a good guy and know a lot, and I don't know him personally, so I don't have an innate problem with him, just the dismissive unsubstantiated attitude he displayed in his comments.

I've at least tried to cite the sources I've read and my understanding of them and show the reasoned thoughts I've had on the issues after said reading.

But, again, that's neither here nor there. I still see problems with the CO2 sublimation and the clathrate carving models. Though as I've said, I've just started reading up on it (from one of his own articles I happened across written in 2001; obviously a lot has changed since then), I can still see problems with prior theories and a few seem to apply to current theory as well. But, as I've said before, I'm not opposed to "reading up," I actually rather enjoy it, and I'll get up to speed quickly. I'm sure that any minor tiffs can be worked out (I've already said as much in other posts).

So, anyway... I still fundamentally disagree in theory with some assertions and blind-spots of current theory (including Nick's and others'), but I'm open to being convinced by evidence that successfully accounts for ALL "anomalies" in good fashion. And I'm open to good scientific debate. But I'm NOT open to being trash-talked or "asserted-upon" without at least some kind of cogent train of thought or resources I can go to in order to do independent investigation. I'll take the couple of 2-3 books he offered under advisement and take a look when I have time. But I'll also continue my learning at respectable sites online in terms of basic concepts. I tend to favor a quantitative approach to learning. IE, when I look something up, I don't want to hear it from just one source, which may display significant bias towards a specific claim or theory, I want to find 2-10 sources and read all the opinions on the relevant material to seewhat consensus says and where the differing authors disagree. Sometimes disagreements in theory are the most interesting parts of the theory. Since dispute leads to critical thinking, as long sa the reader or participant is willing to think critically or be receptive to alternate interpretations. Often it's places of dispute that get more research and lead to new theories and innovation. So, pattern-seekers tend to seek out patterns that overlap or display siilar patternings. But when things dont' QUITE line up right, we also like to ask "why?" And it's that Why? moment where discoveries may be made and new things learned.

I guess I'll end there for wont of going on for 2-3 more pages. *wink*

On a completely unrelated topic, there was a great article I read last night about Conventional Science versus Mavericks. I guess I'd classify myself into the latter category of pattern-seekers that tend to challenege dogma rather than embrace it. Especially at the places where dogma meets "anomales." 'Cause it's those anomales in dogma that often yield the most interesting insights and can lead to entirely new realms of good information.

Ahh, here we go (a nice little random diatribe, but useful in terms of dogma versus innovation, small steps versus revolutions, etc. Of course it notes the pros and cons of both approaches, too.):
http://amasci.com/freenrg/mavskep1.txt