There have been two shock new developments in the Rosegate scandal. First, Deltoid can reveal that as well as misrepresenting Murari Lal and Mojib Latif, David Rose did the same thing to Roger Pielke Jr. Just as with Lal and Latif, no correction has been made.
Second, in a comment left here David Rose has admitted that he has no credibility, conceding that “nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference”. While it’s certainly true that Rose lacks credibility, it’s worth reflecting on why. I imagine you’ve noticed that when a reporter writes about something that you are expert on, they often get stuff wrong. That’s because reporters have to write stories about many different areas and it is impossible for them to be expert in all of them. In the case of David Rose this is exacerbated because he has only been reporting on climate science for a couple of months and is getting his scientific information from Steve McIntyre.
It should be obvious that Lal and Latif know more about science and their own views than Rose, but when they say that he got it wrong, rather than admitting that he misunderstood them, Rose accuses them of lying:
“climate scientists find their views expressed to journalists make an unexpected impact, so they claim they were misquoted”
Alternatively, David Rose wouldn’t have an interesting story if he accurately reported what the scientists said, so his incentive is to sex it up. And the newspaper he works for is more interested in selling papers than in the accuracy of their stories, so they support him in this. (The Daily Mail is infamous for its scare-mongering about vaccination.)