It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sunwolf
originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: Chickensalad
Cherry picking in terms of scientific data would be saying that those handful of dissenters are correct despite the much, much larger scientific consensus that says they are wrong. So you can better understand what cherry picking is and isn't. Bold is to highlight the key portion of what is cherry picking and how it applies to these arguments.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.
Next you are going to say that 99.99% of all scientists agree on AGW...consensus!Har!
The Austrian Climate Change Assessment Report 2014 says average temperatures in Austria have risen by almost 2C since 1880.
This is compared with a global rise of 0.85C in the same period.
The document says that the changes in temperature are mainly man-made and caused by "emissions of greenhouse gases".
originally posted by: DAZ21
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: jjkenobi
I am not a scientist. I don't expect you to believe me. I just know my personal experience in my local area and it concerns me. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to food production. You do what you gotta do.
So what? We should allow GM crops that are drought proof etc. ?
Playing God like that is so bad, why? Because these crops will be introduced and thrive overtaking and wiping out natural species.
When messing around with the genetic makeup of these crops we don't know the long term health affects associated with consuming such genetically modified material.
If they were deemed detrimental in the long run, we'd have an uphill battle on our hands, as these crops would unnaturally be the dominant species, surviving in harsh conditions where the natural species can not.
originally posted by: Rezlooper
originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Greven
I agree. Who's to say it's entirely our fault, or that it wouldn't happen anyway and either way - what's there to do?
Hold hands and recycle while we all sing folk songs?
It may be too late for a bottom up strategy, but of course it wouldn't hurt if we all do our part. At this point, I think we need a top down strategy which begins with the corporations (oil and gas mostly) and governments and what they can do on a global scale.
The US west continues to swelter under a prolonged drought while much of the north and eastern US has been noticeably cooler than average for much of 2014. Record temperatures up to 4C above normal have been recorded in west Antarctica, even as the extent of sea ice has reached record levels.
originally posted by: Kuroodo
For those who don't know, Global Warming doesn't mean that the whole planet get's warm and everyday is a hot day. It means that the planet gets warm, causing the climate to change. Places get warmer, and colder. Some warm places go hotter, some colder/cold. Some cold places get colder, some hotter/hot.
That is why Climate Change is a better term than global warming.