The fact that Mr David Rose is less than trustworthy as a source, is quite clear. Has been for a long while. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/08/impervious-to-learning/It was Rose who posted a MISquote of Trenberth's comment a couple of years ago which prompted me to complain to several newspapers and their watchdog agencies regarding journalistic integrity. 80,000 blogs had it right - and he still got it wrong in an article read my millions of people in daily newspapers, right around the planet. The man is basically an incompetent jerk if not simply a liar, as his efforts on the Iraq war also show. A menace to public information. So the question... is this DATA credible ? Given that 2012 is only half finished and he is examining a 15 year period, which is really a minimum statistical period to even contemplate a conclusion? Here's a better way to examine it - First Rawhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.phpand now taking into account all the known forcings. http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend-fr.phpThe answer is no... Rose remains remarkably inaccurate and his reporting reprehensible. You need a different source of information. This one is lying to you. :-)
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<