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: stirling
The manipulation goes on......We are mere prawns ......
It amuses me how much magic is being used in an attempt to
hornswaggle us into more taxation-- this by scientists. SHAME.
originally posted by: amazing
What do you call it when you focus on one small detail that may or may not be in error, instead of focusing on the bigger picture? I see that a lot in these debates, as well as other conspiracy theories etc.
What are the benefits and pitfalls of this tactic? If we focus too much on Mann for one example. Does that help with the debate or get us to truth or does that derail us and waste our time?
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.
Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to actuality.
True enough, but 50 million years ago would NOT have seen the difference in solar radiance you and others are trying to push. You are just repeating the mantra because...that's what you do.
Show me some research, data collected, or ANYTHING that would suggest that 50 million years ago solar radiance was below what it is today by...say, more than 1-2% maximum. 50 million years compared to the life cycle of the sun is nothing. Try again.
I have an idea about you and apparently there is much insecurity involved.
originally posted by: bbracken677
My hypothesis is a rather simple one: That man is not fully responsible for the rise in co2 and temperatures as typically portrayed. I do not doubt that he has had an impact, but to what degree?
There is another compelling argument that can be given to support this hypothesis. Sime, et al. have found that past interglacial climates were much warmer than previously thought. Their analysis of the data shows that the maximum interglacial temperatures over the past 340 kyr were between 6 C and 10 C above present day values. From Fig. 1, it can be seen that past interglacial carbon dioxide concentrations were not higher than that of the current interglacial, and therefore carbon dioxide could not have been responsible for this warming. In fact, the concentration of carbon dioxide that would be needed to produce a 6-10 C rise in temperature above present day values exceeds the maximum (1000 p.p.m.v.)