The Economist rips into the Daily Mail for reporting that Phil Jones stated there was no significant warming since 1995 and that it was acually .12 degrees per decade.
Now it seems that the nameless writer might be guilty of malpractice himself.
The relevant parts of the BBC interview:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
What part of "yes "does the Economist journalist not understand?
Phil Jones has reservations about quoting statistically insignicant figures but the Economist has no such problems in publishing them to smear another paper as "liars".
4 comments: