Argumentum ad populum, suck it dry

Idk what part of "burden of proof" or "proving a negative" you're still struggling with and I don't care, your inability to understand simple concepts or accept responsibility for supporting your own arguments is your own problem. And lol @ "good faith" from the person pushing Times of Israel as a source for anything, try harder halfwit.

You posted a link to a wikipedia page, wikipedia is not a source, wikipedia articles routinely contain cited sources that are outdated, dead links, or are verifiably incorrect. Post links to actual sources so that I and others can evaluate them, or admit you have nothing and tuck tail.

Wikipedia is not a primary source halfwit, try scrolling to the bottom of the page and posting links to the sources they've cited

Not knowing would be a good reason to assume nothing, I don't have to believe the fire is cold to doubt that there's a fire at all

You're misusing words because you're barely literate

I directly quoted the studies you mentioned, couldn't have done that if I didn't open the links and read the studies, try harder halfwit

Fuck that, balkanize both

Fair, you did say years though, plural, which is still unrealistic

Recycling still consumes energy which can be just as non-renewable as the energy used for making paper, and the impact of mining is far greater than hemp farming even at its worst. Try harder.

It's not a false accusation, you just don't like the source

This is the one