Crichton isn't giving us the whole picture

The argument I examined is made by the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the links provided on the Moodle. While the majority of the members are scientists, I couldn't help but think of the idiot celebrities and lawyers in State of Fear when I saw the subheading that said the organization consisted of concerned citizens and scientists. Still, the number of scientists in this organization is greater than the 0 scientists that wrote State of Fear, which lends authority to their argument. The cases they make case-by-case refute different arguments made by Crichton, providing a counter-argument and evidence. In the majority of cases, it seems Crichton has cherry-picked his evidence, showing only data that supports his case. It should be pointed out that while most of the graphs in the book show trends that do not show global warming, most of them are in the chapter about lawyers preparing for a defense attorney refuting global warming. It only makes sense that a defense case would use this data (Lie), but it is dishonest for Crichton to pass this data off as the truth. A specific argument I looked at was their answer to Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? In this case the argument becomes less scientific and more of an emotional appeal. They use fear of a worse future, but not in a catastrophic way. They are honest in stating that this is a problem for future generations, and that we are obligated to preserve the Earth for them. This is the classic "Think of the children" argument. You wouldn't hurt children, would you?