Forbes not good enough? How many other news sites, blogs, politicians etc are anti-cannabis... It's still doesn't change the fact that buck is wrong in repeating claims of a consensus, let alone a 97% consensus... Didn't want to post to anything other than a half reputable news site, as I know your vagina gets sore when anyone links to a blog...
I didn't cite poptech you uncouth degenerate and it doesn't change the fact that you got nothing...
Forbes is commenting on poptech piece they bring nothing themselves
You should read the cites you bring here here sometimes sometimes you might understand what they're saying that way
I love how you imply anger and bitterness when I point out what a hypocritical douchebag you are... When you start on the Australian shit, I know your jimmies are a rustlin'...
So are you claiming there's a 97% consensus too? Because you don't need forbes or poptech to tell you you're full of shit...
But you at least implied that you think aussies are stupid. I was just curious why you think that. Because of the aussies on this forum? Or was it just to wind echelon up?
well that certainly put me in my place didn't it.....?
Perhaps when you understand such basic processes you maybe better equipped to comment on "consensus"
Basic processes? lol this should be funny,let's hear about them...?
You jumped in here again to... dispute the fact I reject bucks claim of a 97% scientific consensus on ACC/AGW?
Like I said you cockney bastard, wasn't from forbes, poptech or sense about science. Just had to find something palatable to present it with, enter forbes. My claim stands and judging by your understanding of weight and mass, you're in no position to render an opinion.
So, what extra ice depth did you see, this winter, talking about walleyes?
You haven't backed up your claim that 3 seperate papers are wrong as such it's not got leg to stand on.
Scientists who responded to the doran/zimmerman survey had this to say;
What no cite to say where you got this from?
