This middlebrow dismissal has occurred on so many threads at this point that I feel it's aged out of being taken seriously. Instead of generating evidence for you, I feel justified in telling you that obviously there has been evidence posted, and if you don't find it compelling and want to shoot it down, you must first demonstrate to others that you actually know how to find it.

The alternative position is the one where we first collect all the analysis and evidence and context and present it to you so that you can say you knew all of that all along and didn't mention it because it was so obviously flawed.

In addition to being frustrating to deal with, that latter position is an effective way to shoot down any common-sense argument, from "vaccines don't cause autism" to "men really did land on the moon" to "9/11 was not an inside job".