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.
20 Responses to “The Daily Pravda spin Moscow’s line”
Billy Blofeld
Tom,
I couldn’t be arsed to try and type a reply in the 1 inch viewing window available on this blog, so I lavished you with a response on my own blog.
Shamik Das
Let me get this right, you’re claiming Galileo would have agreed with you had he been around today?!
Billy Blofeld
Shamik,
Nope. Just pointing out that it is valid to question the accepted orthodoxy using evidence. That is what this blog is for isn’t it?
george
lets face it, the earth is warming, the weather stations shows the unequivocally
the question is, how much is due to humans and how much would have happened without the CO2 rise (or would the temperature have gone down and the CO2 effect is worse than thought?)
this then leads to the question of hjow much temp rise we can expect in future
these questions are as yet unanswered. the evidence and the models are just not sufficient as yet – FACT
my solution would be to stop arguing about it and have a carbon tax based on the last year’s overall temperature as given by weather stations. if the earth is going to heat up a lot – fine, the C tax will address that. if it doesn’t, everyone’s happy.
Anon E Mouse
george – The method of taking the temperature changed in 2003, which set of results are you working from?