I'm sure you've all seen this by now. Met Office releases new figures that show no warming in 15 years. It's a story in the mail on Sunday written by David Rose. The story has gone viral, being repeated in blogs all over the internet, without any of them bothering to check or verify it. Even though the British Meteorological Office issued a public statement correcting the mail story. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around Decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997. Oh dear, looks like Rose got the story wrong. He won't be making that mistake again. But yes, he did. Eagle-eyed viewers will have spotted that this claim about the Met Office admitting 15 years of no warming was made back in January. Nine months on, Rose has given birth to yet another story that looks like a carbon copy of the first. Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released. And once again, the bloggers are regurgitating this without bothering to read the Met Office report. Because if they'd tried, they would have quickly discovered that there is no Met Office report. The Met Office simply released updated global temperature data called Hadcroot IV, along with a four-line description of how the data set was compiled. There was no analysis or interpretation of the data at all. Rose invented this fictitious report in order to stamp his own interpretation on the data. And just as in January, the Met Office issued a statement correcting the mail on Sunday story. As Yogi Berra would say, deja vu all over again. The Met Office even took the unusual step of publishing its response given to Rose when he made some inquiries before writing his story. When Rose specifically asked if there'd been no warming trend since 1997, the Met Office responded, there has been a warming trend it even gave him the figure. It then explained the principle of determining trends and the pitfalls of arbitrarily choosing start and endpoints over a short period of time and drawing a straight line in between them. It tried to explain just as I have in my videos that in the short term, climate is not only affected by CO2, but by other factors such as ocean-based oscillations. Almost none of the information the Met Office gave him made it into Rose's story. Rose simply made up his own interpretation of the data and made it look as though this came from a Met Office report. Then Rose proudly announced that, until today, this has not been reported. Hate to break it to your David, but the reason no one else reported on this is because even other tabloid newspapers didn't have the balls to pluck all this out of thin air and then try to pass it off as the work of the Met Office. For Rose to do his own analysis is fine, as long as he and the mail on Sunday make this clear. Just tell the world that a tabloid newspaper reporter with no background in science has concluded that global warming stopped in 1997, as far as he can tell, and let the world make of that what they will. If that admission had been made, I doubt would be seeing Rose's analysis plastered all over the internet and in the mainstream media. No, that's according to an unqualified tabloid journalist who took a stab at analyzing this data himself. Why people still insist on unconditionally believing the Daily Mail, despite its appalling record of inaccurate reporting on climate science, is beyond me. And why anyone would want to send me a message claiming the Met Office has published findings that there has been no verifiable warming for 16 years, as if I would be so stupid and so gullible as to believe this quote without bothering to check it, is also beyond me. If I've emphasized anything on my channel, it's the importance of checking and verifying sources. Fortunately, most of the people who messaged me about the mail story saw right through it and were sensible enough to check the facts for themselves. But I'm frankly getting tired of having to do the checking for all those gullible bloggers out there who simply repeat this stuff without checking it. Now I'm sure the comments for them will be filled with a lot of amateur climatologists who will tell me they've looked at the Daily Mail graph and it does look like global warming stopped in 1997. Well, I've made several videos explaining why experts see things very differently to amateurs because the experts take into account various factors that are either not understood or ignored by the amateurs. So before you start giving me your beliefs and gut feeling about what the graph looks like to you, please visit these videos and find out how climate scientists calculate temperature trends. If you think the experts are wrong, then you have ample space on those video for a to give us the benefit of your expertise. My beef here is not with the tired old myth that global warming has stopped, but with the disingenuousness of reporters and tabloid newspapers that are willing to change facts to make a sensational story and with the blogging blockheads who are willing to swallow their stories without a hint of skepticism. Look guys, I admit I'm not very smart. I came bottom of my class at school. What I do on this channel is not superhuman. I use my experiences as a science reporter to try to convey what scientific research has discovered. And when I read something that reports on scientific research, I check it. To climb at science critics, any one of you could have checked the mail on Sunday's story. It would have taken just a few seconds to click on the Met Office website to see what this so-called report says or even if it exists. Really, how hard can that be?