My point is that disinformation campaigns are not solely an endeavour of nefarious actors with an agenda. They are also undertaken by those with noble intentions. Climate alarmists are a good example of that.
Should we give disinformation campaigns a free pass if they're done with good intentions?
It's right there in the 4th paragraph.
Even if the complaint letter turns out to be upheld (unlikely given the history of the authors, but you never know), it doesn't affect, or even question, the conclusion of the meta study in the Guardian piece you did link to. The one that concludes climate is only a significant secondary factor.
Until said letter is upheld as finding a valid flaw in the study, it's worthless. That's how science progresses. Individual studies are found accurate or wanting, further research confirms, disputes or adds precision.
A few steps from the hyperbole of "flawed to the point of uselessness", as though it is already proven.
The recent study "heavily pushed by the likes of the Guardian" (sic) refers to an entirely different meta study[1] of 73 global reports. No mention of or link to the older study you cite.
The meta study concludes intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors. So the failure or otherwise of the temperature record in a single location is mostly irrelevant to their findings. If it is even included in the analysis at all.
What a delightful illustration for a thread on disinformation and fake news.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071...