You're being driven into mass hysteria by shitty research and a pop-sci bias which only selects for you the absolute worst possibility under the weakest academi

You're being driven into mass hysteria by shitty research and a pop-sci bias which only selects for you the absolute worst possibility under the weakest academic standards. Take this paper for example. See figure 2? Those numbers come directly from the trend lines on those figures. But look closely at the data. The shading effectively represents how much data they have each year. In the "Chickens" figure there is a box plot in 2000 that is barely discernible, but if you look carefully you see that the distribution matches recent years. How convenient that that data was hidden, since it directly refutes their conclusions. In fact, the fact that they used bar graphs here is extremely questionable when a scatter plot would far better represent the data. We'd easily be able to glean what the box plots are trying to hide: that the data is extremely noisy, that past data is almost non-existent, and that every year the range of their distribution is nearly 0%-100%. While there might indeed be an effect in the data over time, the fact is that the effect is far smaller than year-to-year variability.