If there is anything I have learned this past week, it is that anyone can cherry pick their science.
I presented a story last week, about fish. Since then I've been attacked by lobbyists from groups who are threatened by my message, while being lauded by conservationists who agree with my message.
Did I cherry pick my scientific references?
Not to my knowledge.
I investigated a wide range of sources from the United Nations Environment Programme, to the Food and Agriculture Organization, to the journal Nature to develop my thoughtful argument.
For the record:
It is always possible to find 100 papers on why XYZ is the right. Yet, a second person could find 100 different papers stating why XYZ is wrong.
This is the way science has always been argued; in an evidenced-based manner. With the advent of the internet, it is easy to pick the references from the scientific literature that support whatever argument you are trying to make.
In short, reporting on science should not be the artful manipulation of data that it has become, but instead a discussion of truth.
I am always open to rigorous scientific facts that serve to enlighten my knowledge, but all too often the "facts" that are presented to me by my dissenters, seem to either lack the solid scientific support, or are biased by the industry.
Believe me, I have no conflicts of interest. I receive no funding for what I write. I am therefore not beholden anyone.
I read the literature. I watch the TED conferences. I report on my findings. Nothing more, nothing less
To my supporters, thank you for your generous and thoughtful comments. To my critics, I always appreciate thoughtful discourse, but personal attacks are completely unnecessary and counterproductive to advancing your case.
To all, I promise to evaluate the facts and disseminate what I perceive as a scientific truth. That is all I have ever done, and all I set out to do.