Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
If the information is important enough,you'll pay better attention, be aware,and intercept it as it presents itself.
Since you're not already in possession of the information it infers a lack of interest,or failure on your part,to capture the data from your environment as it made itself available.
I'm not your boy.I'm not willing to turn on a dime and redirect my course of study predicated upon your interests.Perhaps,at my speed,over time,I would be able to flesh out data more fully.
If you're going to debate facts,you're going to have to do your own due diligence and build your own brief.
Data is always available online.
NATURE will be able to provide raw data.Research methodologies.Computer/statistical models employed. .Results.Probabilities,Conclusions,Discussion,Reco mmendations for further research.Any post-publishing corrections
|
But, I was paying attention. You made statements without providing links or more information . If I had made similar statements against AGW without links or proof you or someone else would have called me out.
Quote:
|
I'm not your boy.I'm not willing to turn on a dime and redirect my course of study predicated upon your interests.
|
Funny, I could say the same thing.
Quote:
|
If you're going to debate facts,you're going to have to do your own due diligence and build your own brief.
|
I had a folder.
Key word “had”...
It is now just a corrupt file.
>