Hub:

Actually, no. I cited the magnetism issue as an obvious example of how leaving out relevant information can badly distort the effect of an article. For another example, the reference somewhere in your links of past cycles of warming and cooling over the milelnia on this planet completely omits the change in range of the magnitude of the numbers and the acceleration of the rate of change, both of which are completely disparate with past cycles which have been measured (by inference) from ice cores going back thousands of years. Nor do they take into account the side-by-side correlation of carbon emissions and temperature ramp-up thathave occurred since 1900, for example. ALthough there are lots of tangential arguments to be made (for example, that old coal-burning methods use less carbon molecules that LP-Gas burning does) the gross vo9lume of carbon count in the atmosphere-which is the critical bearing data-point--is ignored, as is the correlation with temperature and the acceleration factor already mentioned.

Each of the placating soporifics your links mention ignore critical other information -- for example, if the rate of indebtedness is declining by a fraction, ithas little bearing on themagnitude of the national debt OR its gross multiplication in the last six years.

Finding small datums to make you feel comfortable about ignoring big ones is not objective, or particularly intelligent.

A