[hyperbovine]

> Any one is sufficient on its own, but all are interesting.

You use technical terms like "sufficient" and "replicated", as though you actually understood how science worked, but then link to a pile of crap scholarship published in third-rate journals by cranks and racists. It's annoying. And dangerous. Worse, you appear to be completely unaware of the distinction between correlation and causation, and what policy implications that has. Kindly get a clue.

[ddiq]

Can you look at the data and come to a different conclusion rather than attack the paper ad hominem?