Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
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.
Funny, I could say the same thing.
I had a folder.
Key word “had”...
It is now just a corrupt file.
> |
Too bad about your data.I've got everything on paper(always did),so there's no risk of loss.(although you can hardly get around inside the house for all the paper)
In prior posts,I've commented on my sources.
Most all my data is from the original scientist's papers and letters published in the scientific journals: SCIENCE,NATURE,then,Scientific American,National Geographic,Rolling Stone,Popular Science,Mechanics Illustrated,SIERRA Club magazine sometimes,AccuWeather.com,PBS NewsHour,PBS NOVA,PBS FRONTLINE,Modern Marvels,and books.
Very infrequently will I find something online,but I do look at NASA,and NOAA,Hadley Center,World Meteorological Organization.
Presently,a condition for publishing with SCIENCE,is that the contributor provide full transparency for all their raw data,the research methodology,the computer/statistical models they actually used,everything they did,so as anyone interested can use their data and protocols to see if they get the same results-or maybe find a glitch,or worse in their research and conclusions.
It's the best stuff out there in my opinion.
I do have all the source material,so backing it up isn't a problem,except for finding it again,in a timely manner before I die of old age.
Any of the members who've been out here to my 'train-wreck' of a home should be able to vouch for the clutter.