Comment: Yes I have, several times, but you can enjoy your opinion

(See in situ)


Yes I have, several times, but you can enjoy your opinion

Wikipedia is NOT accurate reference material however. It has a long history of skewing numbers, omitting pertinent information and changing historic facts.
Some examples:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/does-w...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-rot...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-ar...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
http://gawker.com/5639455/rush-limbaugh-fooled-by-wikipedia
And there are many more from a wide range of places, however, point made and not important.

Getting back to cannabis; let’s examine the “yield chart” you cited. It indicates 26 gallons per acre. Its inclusion on the chart is inexplicable, laughable and it even says [citation needed] next to the word hemp! (Further, the word hemp only exists in 2 places in the entire article) Where did they get that number? Do you know? It’s quite clear to me that the only reason hemp is even included there is to subtly convince people who might be researching bio-fuel to conclude that “hemp” has no potential.
This Wikipedia page surely doesn't mention the peer reviewed Study by: Alan Haney and Benjamin B. Kutscheid at the University of Indiana at Urbana, Department of Biology that I’ve cited in my article. Question: Why? Answer: Because such would show a massive potential for a rare but incredible strain of cannabis sativa (ditch-weed) that could render 8,500 pounds of seed per acre. (As I’ve already stated; this article is only a small part of a larger work) The article itself only talks about the liquid fuels section of a much larger chapter on energy which also includes sections on the following: Helium 3, geothermal tapping, bio-mass, hydrogen, hydrodynamic, low voltage DC, UV solar and several other types which are also profoundly being hidden, pushed into obscurity and held back by the vested interests of the well-connected and most powerful. I suppose if I posted those sections, I can only assume that I would hear contrary arguments about each from you.

I’m not quite sure why it’s so important for you to force the opinion that there are no fuel values in cannabis seed oil but, if you like to vigorously prop up the status quo while citing main stream misinformation sites like Wikipedia, then by all means; ‘Take hold of the flame’ and run with it. I have too many other things that occupy my time to keep replying to people who like to argue.