lol. Difficult to take the original Mail article seriously. A look at the temperature rise graph [1] tells you a lot. Bizarrely they've started the y-axis at a

lol. Difficult to take the original Mail article seriously. A look at the temperature rise graph [1] tells you a lot. Bizarrely they've started the y-axis at a value lower than the '97 baseline meaning the slope of a line through the data looks shallower than it is. Secondly their interpretation of the graph is messed up. The Met Office data tracks the NOAA data, but looks to be lower by a constant. This means you'd expect that the slope of a regression line through each of the two data sets would be very similar. Why did they choose 1997 as a baseline (why does anyone choose the baselines they do)? '1997' doesn't appear in the article. '2000' appears in the article. Oh look, the temperature was lower in 2000 meaning the slope would appear greater if the graph matched the discussion. [I don't know who is pulling a fast one here] [1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C57C00000578-4192182-image-a-90_1486249374130.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C57C0000057...