Just because you don't like his citations doesn't make you right in saying he didn't have them. But first a side-note: Stop changing the subject. I was saying

Just because you don't like his citations doesn't make you right in saying he didn't have them. But first a side-note: Stop changing the subject. I was saying the null hypothesis is irrelevant here. I'm saying don't discard new evidence because it goes against the null hypothesis. A few comments up (and the answer to "why") was said "[I] strongly believe [in the null hypothesis]", which to me is very strange. How can you "strongly believe" in a null hypothesis? I didn't like his references (and stop attacking me, and implying my position), in that you can't just cherry-pick a study you like and call it fact (though doesn't make it wrong. Just unproven). Everyone does this. It doesn't make it right, but stones and glass houses. To understand what you consider legit studies, I randomly clicked on three of his links. At least two of them must not qualify as legit study, so could you explain why you say two or three of these are "blogs and magazines"? I guess you qualify the journal "Science" as unscientific and merely a magazine? So that's one. Mind you, it'd be a real coincidence if the one supposedly legit study he referenced just happened to be in this list of three: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763412001510?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341...