The Daily Pravda spin Moscow’s line

Media Integrity

The Daily Express have attacked the Met Office, using flawed Russian State data to accuse them of falsifying evidence on climate change.

The increasing desperation of the Daily Express was laid bare today with yet another front page article denying climate change.

Parrotting the line spun by the semi-official Russian State RIA Novosti news agency, the paper claimed, without evidence, that the Hadley Centre “probably tampered with Russian climate data”.

The story, that Met Office climatologists ignored data that contradicted their assumptions, follows the Express’s front-page earlier this week listing “100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL” – ‘evidence’ comprehensively demolished by the New Scientist.

Their latest piece is on even shakier ground, and appears to have been fed to them by the Russian Government, whose vast oil, gas and revenues could be imperiled if a world leaders agree strong measures to deal with climate change at Copenhagen.

The Institute of Economic Analysis, the group behind the smears, was founded by Andrey Illarionov – a former aide to Vladimir Putin.

The main attack on the Met Office, that they only select weather stations which favour their hypotheses, would appear to be entirely baseless. The set of stations they use are evenly distributed across the globe and aren’t even picked by them.

No related posts.

20 Responses to “The Daily Pravda spin Moscow’s line”

  1. Billy Blofeld

    Tom,

    Has the Flying Spaghetti Monster used his noodly appendage on you?

    Last time I looked, science wasn’t one sided and it welcomes (requires) criticism.

  2. Tom

    So, if science isn’t one sided, should we also be teaching and considering alternatives to evolution? Should the government not implement a health policy based on the theory that HIV causes AIDS, since there are scientists (even a Nobel prize winner!) who disagree with that?

  3. Mike Thomas

    A translation of the original Cyrillic report is now available is it’s damning in terms of CRU’s handling of the data. The report also provides a http link to the Russian raw data so you can use that and the CRU hack data to compare for yourself.

    Place all stations onto the graph, a flat trend line, a natural fluctuation in line with other observations. Plot the CRU selection – hockey stick.

    I notice that none of the usual suspects from CRU or Grantham have rubbished this report. Odd that. Maybe they’ll call the two authors assh*les too.

    As for gas and oil being imperiled, Shell and BP don’t think so, they have been funding and seeking advice from CRU for almost ten years.

    If anything Big Oil will benefit from climate change because the carbon credits alone will create a very large potential for offset and trade.

    Face it, there is a old acronym in computing – GIGO. Garbage in Garbage out, CRU have been putting garbage temperature data into their model, it’s been spitting out garbage. It’s over for the climate change lobby.

  4. Anon E Mouse

    Tom – Where do you get your figures about the earth warming from?

    Second go…

  5. Ian Logan

    Tom, you need to clarify your terms. What do you mean by a competent scientific expert? In what way would such a person differ from any other kind of scientific expert, given that a key determinant of expertise is competence? Do you mean someone who agrees with the majority view? If so, then not so long ago the majority view was that the universe was filled with ether. Were those scientists who did not agree with that view incompetent? How did they change from being incompetent to competent without changing their views? The timing of the announcement of this data (which is not backed up by satellite data) by the Met Office on the day before the Climate conference began was political not scientific. One should be a little suspicious of science when it becomes embroiled in politics. See here for a jokey, but telling account of how scientific research proceeds http://bit.ly/8RaITY

Comments are closed.