Featured IIHS wants more nags

Such studies are often biased from the beginning to hold the studied species responsible in the conclusion.

It's like the Smithsonian study that holds feral cats responsible for the extinction of dozens of species in its conclusion. However, if you actually read the study, in all of those cases, the extinction was caused by the humans, dogs, and rats. When these studies are done, a goal/outcome is already set before any research is done, and the research and analysis is biased and focus in order to reach that goal/outcome. Therefore, such studies are inherently biased even before they start. They are like the climate-change-rebuttal studies sponsored by the oil companies in that sense.

 

I linked review papers like the one your article was reporting on. Not all the research reviewed can be biased, or your source suffers the same issue. But that paper conformed to your preconceived notion, so you didn't question it. That notion also kept you from even considering the sources I provided, nor the main point that impacts on plants can't be applied to animals, and vice versa.

There truly is no point in having discussions with you.

 

On the contrary, with you, as you keep Google'ing references to support your point.

 

And if you have an opinion and a reference it is OK. But if I have a contrary opinion and cite references supporting my opinion it isn't? Please explain.

(I'm one who regularly will switch to a news source whose bias is opposite mine. Just as I love the contrary cartoons posted by some here. I want my opinions/biases to be challenged. )

 

And that's what I did. He doesn't want to agree to disagree.