> It's way too common to read articles where clearly cherry-picked prose takes the place of a more informative graph, only to lookup said graph and find that th

> It's way too common to read articles where clearly cherry-picked prose takes the place of a more informative graph, only to lookup said graph and find that the article seems to be trying to intentionally distort the data to make some point. Huh? The article doesn't say anything about 1990. It says they rose by 80% after hitting their low in 2009. Population rose steadily from 1990 to 2023, so if you are trying to cite population increase as a factor in the rise from 2009 to 2023, you also need to explain how it didn't contribute to the drop from 1990 to 2009. I would say that, actually, you are (perhaps unintentionally) distorting the data to fit your worldview while trying to criticize the article.