I didn't just cite one source, half wit.
I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.
Choke on it.
Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)
So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.
In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.
As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...
You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:
"To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anything close to a 100% consensus on the subject.
My opinion on the validity of the Cook paper is right there in black and white. That you keep saying I support the paper indicates that a lack critical thinking skills may be the least of your problems.
...how many peer reviewed papers does it take to refute one peer reviewed paper?
I believe one is quite sufficent.
I quite agree. Glad you finally referenced one instead of relying on the crap you initially did.
Science isn't a popularity contest and it...
[long rant claiming that: I hold opinions that I don't, made predictions I haven't, called someone a bigot, I'm out to destroy the world, etc., etc.]
[...blah blah blah]
Thanks for spewing that load of mental diarrhea sprinkled with a touch of paranoia on everyone. It says a lot about how you think.