In my opinion the discovery process of a court case would be illuminating, because we would finally get to see all
the data on both sides of the argument.
Not exact matches
It saddens me to see a post like this — one which, much like the
arguments on the other
side of the debate, focus
on fear tactics rather than an even handed presentation
of the
data.
And this is a good example
of data analysis that can be used differently
on different
sides of an
argument.
For other indicators — glacial retreat, sea level, arctic ice extent, etc. — the
data is equally noisy, and it is difficult having a sensible discussion without the inevitable cherry - picking
on both
sides of the
argument.
While I hate to appear negative, I now expect to see a host
of comments shouting about conspiracies,
data falsification, biased sources, and all the other things to which an
argument is reduced when you're
on the wrong
side of it.
Attribution outlines in IPCC WG1 AR 5 SPM cover eighteen
arguments, each one valid and backed by observations, and each one the simplest, most parsimonious
of exception, most universal explanation for that
data available; if anything, it errs
on the
side of least drama, and still remains stark and damning
of current emission practices.
My friends, although there's little
data to back either
side of this
argument, I have seen no real evidence that organic consumers are flooding the aisles
of Costco or Wal - Mart to get the best deals
on free range chickens and organic produce.