I don't know why you bothered wasting your time linking to something I've already extensively quoted, highlighted and attributed. Seems to be a case of not-thinking syndrome to me. And if you don't like my rather appropriate retitling of the Daily Torygraph

If a "well educated scientist" thinks that saying something was in the "Torygraph" in February is an accurate attribution, then standards have slipped badly.
An attribution should accurately identify the original source.
Better yet, a UTR (blue clicky link) would be even better.
Clearly you are a little confused about whether you are capable of creating links though.

I've no problems with referring to the paper as The Torygraph. I use the term myself. But it is not accurate to use it as an attribution.