Sentences with phrase «picking data showing»

Not exact matches

A more detailed breakdown of the loan data on Monday showed sharp pick - ups in demand for credit from both households and companies, auguring well for consumption and investment.

September data so far has shown imports and bank lending grew more than expected, while exports picked up.

Inflation data released in mid-January showed that core CPI (consumer price index) in the U.S. increased 1.8 percent in the 12 months through December, picking up from 1.7 percent in November.

Available data for the June quarter probably don't change the picture a great deal, showing some small increases in GDP in continental Europe and a somewhat stronger pick - up in the UK.

In other economic data out on Monday, ANZ jobs ads showed employer demand for more staff is finally picking up pace.

However, more recent data show some modest pick - up in inflation.

US Housing: March housing starts data showed a pick up.

Economic data in the United States have been a little more positive, showing, among other things, stronger - than - expected GDP growth in the second quarter, improvements in business sentiment, a rise in capital goods orders and a small pick - up in industrial production in the past couple of months, though the performance of the labour market has so far remained disappointing.

«There's almost a century of data that show that almost no one reliably succeeds at stock picking.»

But subsequent inquiry by doubters showed that the data were cherry - picked only from trees that supported the thesis.

In moneyline sports, such as baseball and hockey, historical data shows that picking underdogs is the best way to earn profits when investing in the sports marketplace.

I would love to see some actual data showing that «young picks in Habland stall or regress» more than any other team.

In addition to the features shown in this post, subscribers also have access to our entire suite of live odds, public betting data, and our Best Bet picks.

Seems you're a simpleton who makes sweeping judgements based on superficial info, who also cherry picks his data to use in argument (conveniently left out our spurs / anderlecht embarrassments, our Monaco show, getting put out the carling cup at home vs saints...... you know, the truth).

In addition to the features shown in this post, subscribers also have access to our entire suite of live odds and public betting data, as well as our seven Week 1 College Football Best Bets, including picks on:

A city study of GPS data shows that 97.5 percent of the more than 13,230 yellow cabs pick up their fares in Manhattan or at the two city airports.

According to the OECD, the UK rates as follows in 2005 (only data I have access to), I've included data from the US since you've used them in your post and Germany and France as a comparison with two randomly picked (read: I saw them in the list) European countries: Death from heart disease per 100,000 population (23 listed): 13th 49.3; France 2nd 22.5, Germany 12th 48.3; US 7th 40.3; Japan 1st 18.4; Hungary 23rd 71.7 Death from cancer per 100,000 population (24 listed): 18th 175.6; France 15th 166.2; Germany 11th 161.2; US 10th 159.8; Mexico 1st 96.8; Hungary 24th 242.0 Data from the ONS for 2005 (most recent report I could find) shows: Death from cancer per 100,000 population (19 listed): 8th 216.9; Germany 4th 215.3; Cyprus 1st 149.6; Hungary 19th 330.8 Death from heart disease per 100,000 population (19 listed): 10th 141.5; Germany 8th 150.4; Portugal 1st 71.9; Lithuania 19th 4data I have access to), I've included data from the US since you've used them in your post and Germany and France as a comparison with two randomly picked (read: I saw them in the list) European countries: Death from heart disease per 100,000 population (23 listed): 13th 49.3; France 2nd 22.5, Germany 12th 48.3; US 7th 40.3; Japan 1st 18.4; Hungary 23rd 71.7 Death from cancer per 100,000 population (24 listed): 18th 175.6; France 15th 166.2; Germany 11th 161.2; US 10th 159.8; Mexico 1st 96.8; Hungary 24th 242.0 Data from the ONS for 2005 (most recent report I could find) shows: Death from cancer per 100,000 population (19 listed): 8th 216.9; Germany 4th 215.3; Cyprus 1st 149.6; Hungary 19th 330.8 Death from heart disease per 100,000 population (19 listed): 10th 141.5; Germany 8th 150.4; Portugal 1st 71.9; Lithuania 19th 4data from the US since you've used them in your post and Germany and France as a comparison with two randomly picked (read: I saw them in the list) European countries: Death from heart disease per 100,000 population (23 listed): 13th 49.3; France 2nd 22.5, Germany 12th 48.3; US 7th 40.3; Japan 1st 18.4; Hungary 23rd 71.7 Death from cancer per 100,000 population (24 listed): 18th 175.6; France 15th 166.2; Germany 11th 161.2; US 10th 159.8; Mexico 1st 96.8; Hungary 24th 242.0 Data from the ONS for 2005 (most recent report I could find) shows: Death from cancer per 100,000 population (19 listed): 8th 216.9; Germany 4th 215.3; Cyprus 1st 149.6; Hungary 19th 330.8 Death from heart disease per 100,000 population (19 listed): 10th 141.5; Germany 8th 150.4; Portugal 1st 71.9; Lithuania 19th 4Data from the ONS for 2005 (most recent report I could find) shows: Death from cancer per 100,000 population (19 listed): 8th 216.9; Germany 4th 215.3; Cyprus 1st 149.6; Hungary 19th 330.8 Death from heart disease per 100,000 population (19 listed): 10th 141.5; Germany 8th 150.4; Portugal 1st 71.9; Lithuania 19th 490.6

The United States remains the world's largest investor in research and development, but China is picking up speed so rapidly that it is estimated to surpass the United States in this area by about 2019, data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows.

Contributors to climate change debate websites and written submissions to us claimed that these e-mails showed a deliberate and systematic attempt by leading climate scientists to manipulate climate data, arbitrarily adjusting and «cherry - picking» data that supported their global warming claims and deleting adverse data that questioned their theories.

The same applies to the saturated - fat - is - bad - for - your - heart myth, which is based on cherry - picked data... Since the days of Lewis Dahl, a long list of studies has failed to prove ANY benefits of a low - salt diet, and in fact many tend to show the opposite.

For example, the national data for primary schools shows that 24 % of pupils say «In the past year I have been picked on or bullied at school».

Portfolio Strategies Picking a Rate of Return to Use for Long - Term Planning A review of the historical data shows why long - term investors should look to long - term averages when setting return expectations.

While I don't recommend stock - picking to anyone — since the data clearly show the odds are against you — I do recognize the appeal.

Using an impressive array of data and studies, Malkiel convincingly showed that most investors lack consistent skill at timing markets or picking winning stocks over the long - term.

Even better, the research group's data shows investors tend to pick better - performing funds.

Both bills would institute a moratorium that would effectively ban commercial aquarium fishing under the auspices of repopulation, relying on cherry - picked data instead of data from the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, which shows that the populations of several aquatic species have grown since 1999.

New research from First Data Corporation also shows that credit card usage picked up substantially in December.

The data actually shows cooling over the time period he picked out.

You go on to say «The January 1910 shown is the month with the second largest downward correction, obviously cherry - picked from the 1,643 months of the data series.»

The January 1910 shown is the month with the second largest downward correction, obviously cherry - picked from the 1,643 months of the data series.

dhogaza, I see you, for one, picked up my assertion that anyone can cherry - pick the data to post what they want to show.

-- tendency of the * planet to warm — The UAH data is v5.4, v5.5 limits the recent deviance — «no hidden either warming or cooling jumps» reads awkwardly — «But despite the fact that August 1997 was shamelessly cherry - picked by David Rose because it gives the lowest warming trend to the present of any point before 2000» — It was picked to show 15 years, not the lowest trend.

Contributors to climate change debate websites and written submissions to us claimed that these e-mails showed a deliberate and systematic attempt by leading climate scientists to manipulate climate data, arbitrarily adjusting and «cherry - picking» data that supported their global warming claims and deleting adverse data that questioned their theories.

The bottom line: You can't cherry - pick when you start the temperature measurements, and you can't cherry - pick the data sets themselves, even — especially — if they show what you want.

The argument has always been fundamentally flawed, because as The Escalator shows, it's based entirely on cherry picking short - term noise in the data.

And the only way that anyone can show any significant increase in temperature is by cherry picking start and end dates on their graphs and then manipulating the data.

It relied on one of Santer's own papers that was later shown to have «cherry picked» data in an outrageous manner.

Multiple sources, using the all of the data available, rightly show the long term trend is far worse than your dissembling, cherry - picked case.

The data showing the cherry picking only became available in 2014 as part of a belated archiving program in the final year of Gordon Jacoby's life.

Claiming that the sea level rise is only 3.2 mm / yr when up to date data show the rate is 4 mm / yr and accelerating is considered a cherry pick and is not a convincing argument.

There's some pretty damning stuff in there, particularly about the «Mike's Nature trick» of chery - picking data (switching back and forth from one proxy to another) to fit the desired result of showing a «hockey stick» temperature chart.

McIntyre and McKitrick were able to show that the Hockey Stick chart was based on cherry picked use of data, failed to comply with accepted standards in statistics and signal processing, and ignored compelling evidence for the Medieval Warm Period where historical records demonstrate that it was just as warm, if not warmer, then than the 20th century.

Followed by: «Researchers examining the recently released data from HadCRU centre's Dr Phil Jones have found that the series showing warming last century has been based on cherry picked data, and adjustments made by Dr Jones that have never been subjected to independent peer review or audit.

They invented the IPCC to find the proof, it could not be found so they made it up by distorting old data, «not showing their working» or cherry picking data that suited their»cause».

It's funny when people cherry pick very short data spans and then accuse * you * of cherry picking when you show the wider bucket that their cherries were picked from.

Grant Foster shows the ways these fraudsters are trying to trick unwitting persons with cherry - picked data and outright lies while at the same time, he shows the reader how to look at data the correct way.

In cherry picking, you only show the data that confirms what you are trying to prove, whereas in lemon dropping, you drop the data that contradicts it, leaving both the «good» cherry data and the noisy «apple» data that neither confirms nor contradicts it.

Ian, that UAH data shows the standard warming trend if you pick a 20 year window or more.

So if we can arbitrarily pick a starting point to show «data» I would like to see them show everything based on a start point around 1925.

-- Overstating alarming scenarios — Understating uncertainty — Suppressing legitimate minority viewpoints — Suppressing legitimate criticism of their work — Subverting the peer - review process — Not reporting known adverse data in their publications — Cherry - picking data to show a desired result — Not taking steps to counter media and political exaggerations based on but unsupported by their work — Using new and poorly characterized statistical methods without which their results would change substantially