It wouldn't be such an issue if he had actually quoted the research properly. There is a made-up headline than bears no relation to the research he then cites in the article. He misquotes portions of the research thus rendering it utterly meaningless. Now, if he was a gardening correspondent just muddling along and doing his best then maybe I could understand it, but this guy is meant to be a physicist. He's an Imperial College graduate and is a Guardian science correspondent. If he can't get basic stuff like this right, he really shouldn't be in the job. Utter bell end!Quoting statistics in isolation always leads to cobblers like this.