mentalgym wrote:So in a forum such as this when someone cuts and pastes LONG extracts from one source or another, I suppose we ought to be very careful about what we accept as 'gospel truth'.
Well yes, reading LONG pieces of information is necessary when evaluating historical issues, what is confusing is that you interpret length as an automatic reason to be skeptical.
mentalg wrote:While there we went out on a whale watch boat excursion. We talked to a fellow who, if I remember correctly, is one of the computer guys associated with an/the outfit/company that sends up and monitors satellites that track/follow global warming 'patterns' and such for the government and/or universities. From talking to this guy it was readily apparent that he's 'up on his game' when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of global warming research.
Ah, now I understand. You need to randomly meet a person on vacation, who presents himself 'if you remember correctly,' as being 'associated' with the 'outfit/company' that 'track/follow' 'such.'
Then based on talking during a whale watch, it becomes 'readily apparent' he's 'up on his game' about the 'ins and outs' of 'global warming research.'
Okay. So you're that gullible. But let's add your insistence that on a forum like this, long pieces of fully documented information give you pause, and you simply confirm your irrational biases.
Thanks sock puppet, your question led to a significant illustration of mentalgymnast's credibility issues.