Moscow buried in the snows that were meant to vanish February 23, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Lie, Misrepresentation.
Bolt’s Post 24 February, 2010
I haven’t yet encountered an AGW post where Bolt actually provides a headline that is an outright lie – until now. Bolt claims to have “studied” the climate science. Accepting that he has done so to even a small degree therefore means that this is undoubtedly a purposely made lie.
Has a climate scientist somewhere…anywhere said Moscow’s snow or snow in general would “vanish”.
Let’s remind ourselves – yes, even those that have “studied” the climate science – what the IPCC has said in relation to snowfall (amount and coverage):
In general, snow amount and snow coverage decreases in the NH (Supplementary Material, Figure S10.1). However, in a few regions (e.g., Siberia), snow amount is projected to increase. This is attributed to the increase in precipitation (snowfall) from autumn to winter (Meleshko et al., 2004; Hosaka et al., 2005).
So, not only does it not say snow will vanish – as Bolt well knows – but it does say that there are areas where snowfall can actually increase.
And then, via Watts:
At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain’s weather office quietly proposed that the world’s climatologists start all over again to produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and “rigorous” peer review.
Follow the link and we see how Watts frames this story (my emphasis):
In other words, conduct investigations into modern global warming in a way that the Met Office bureaucrats hope will end the mammoth controversy over world temperature data they collected that has been stirred up by their secretive and erratic ways.
The “mammoth controversy” that Watts is talking about relates to Watts’ dismally failing efforts to try to discredit the climate surface temperature record that he claims is due to poorly sited or exposed weather stations.
Unfortunately, as is often the case when one creates conspiracy theories to explain one’s own irrational beliefs, Watts’ attempts and claims are already being shown to be completely unfounded:
In relation to Watts’ “work” in particular see SkepticalScience here.
In relation to the surface temperature data and its validity see SkepticalScience here.