>>13634540>>13634560>>13634590>without a professional analysis what you posted is completely meaninglessI assume by "professional analysis" you just mean "analysis"... right?
>CBC news and the other tabloid sites are not credible sources.Lolwut? Are you alleging that-- when it is a "tabloid site" that happens to host a source-- that this fact somehow undermines the correctness of the content of that source? That's deranged.
>Anyone can create one of these>How dumb can you be to believe these arbitrary numbers with absolutely no proofOh! I see what you're saying. What I forgot, and what that other anon might have forgot, is that people like you are not scientifically trained, you don’t know how to think, you don’t recognize a correct argument when you see it, that is unless it happens to come wrapped in a mantle of authority.
>It's ironic what you're trying to prove when you come across completely clueless about research which you'd learn if you had an education.lol. You are just using POLITICAL MEASURES to determine accuracy, because you are too lazy and stupid to even READ-- let alone dispute-- the technical content of whatever bullshit that's cited in op's stupid infographic. Science is determined by science content, not by who says it or how it sounds!
Thankfully authority is of no value on the internet.
t. didn't read the infographic, just your reply chain
