that applying the Alberico factors to the testimony provided by his experts leads to a conclusion that their testimony constituted admissible scientific testimony. We will not do for Mr. Firstenberg what he has failed to do on his own behalf — that is, search the record in an attempt to demonstr ’ briefs, authorities, exhibits, reports, expert affidavits, and testimony, concluded that Mr. Firstenberg did not meet that burden. Having reviewed the testimony of Drs. Elliott and Singer, we conclude that the record fully supports the district court’s conclusion that they were not qualified to present expert scientific testimony on the issue of general causation. Mr. Firstenberg’s vague and generalized arguments to the contrary provide no basis for reversal. See Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 (<HOLDING>). {28} Finally, Mr. Firstenberg’s repeated
recognizing that an appellant seeking to establish that the district court abused its discretion must do so by a discussion of facts arguments and rulings that appear in the record holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs request for rehearing because the district court relied on an erroneous legal premise to do so holding that it was necessary for this court to reach methodofvaluation arguments because the district court abused its discretion by incorrectly awarding damages