As soon as you cherrypick to support your side of the argument, you lose any moral authority to accuse the other guys of impropriety when they do it. See Roger Pielke Jr.’s post today:

Such tactics have been criticized as cherrypicking and misrepresentation by critics of the use of science by those on the political right, and appropriately so. It seems to me that cherrypicking and misrepresentation is improper no matter who is doing it. Advocacy groups and politicians will always make the best case they can for their agenda, at the known risk of being called out by the other side.


  1. “Cherrypicking” and “failing to give credit to arguments you think don’t deserve it” are two different things IMHO. And of course RP Jr. fails to mention that he has some personal credibility at stake in this little scientific struggle.

Comments are closed.