>>1299266You entire argument hinges on this one study being false. Even though everything points to it being true.
Your basis for this is because it includes newspapers into the study. EVEN THOUGH they clearly state.
>We collected bear spray incident records from 1985 to 2006from state and federal agencies
That data is in their study, but of course the newspapers make it completely invalid, surely.
If you had actually read the study you'd see that they also cite another article. This one however, is behind a paywall. So you'll have to give me 20$ continue laughing at your stupidity.
Even beyond that though, the fact that you can't even put 2 and 2 together yourself makes me wonder something about you.
What do you think about climate change?
