Australians just aren't going to know what rainfall is

This is the opposition leader in Australia, Tony Abbott. He hates the carbon tax, he will repeal it, axe the climate commissioner and clean green energy subsidies.

Go you Beauty!

billions in mothballed desal plants is only the beginning of the damage done by the Alarmists in Australia. the modus operandi in the following link should sound familiar. all u need to know is Hedley Thomas of The Australian newspaper was/is the only reporter getting to the bottom of this very expensive story, relating to the severity of the Brisbane floods last year, and the BOM’s raw data was hardly the place to be looking for an accurate picture:
10 Feb: Australian: Jared Owens and Rosanne Barrett: Wivenhoe w(a)rning to ‘get on front foot ‘ with The Oz
A HYDROLOGIST who independently assessed Wivenhoe Dam’s compliance with its manual was hired after praising the efforts of dam engineers and urging them to “get on the front foot” against scrutiny by this newspaper.
Brisbane hydrologist Greg Roads told Queensland’s floods inquiry yesterday he stood by his March review of Wivenhoe operations, saying the engineers carried out their duties in compliance with the dam’s operating manual…
Mr Roads was quizzed over his email to SEQWater principal hydrologist Terrence Malone four days after the flood peak on January 13, saying it “looks like you guys did a great job”.
Mr Roads was responding to an email from Mr Malone thanking him for “supportive comments” he gave in an article published in The Australian that day.
“I think (reporter) Hedley Thomas has smelled blood,” Mr Roads wrote, copying in Mr Malone’s fellow engineers John Tibaldi, Robert Ayre and John Ruffini.
“I advised (SEQWater dam and weir planning principal) Barton (Maher) yesterdays (sic) that you guys will need to get on the front foot with him. It shouldn’t be me!”
Six weeks later, Mr Roads was commissioned to review the engineers’ compliance, sending his report to Mr Tibaldi on March 9.
Asked how he could have judged the engineers’ work before seeing SEQWater’s account of its actions, Mr Roads said he was intently following raw data on the Bureau of Meteorology website as the disaster unfolded…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wivenhoe-wrning-to-get-on-front-foot-with-the-oz/story-fn59niix-1226267178158

A Maunder like moment would really mess with some Professional Career’s.

BOM/CSIRO rainfall map here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=rain&area=aus&season=0112&period=1960
Note the start date is 1960. Change that to 1900 and you will see the long-term trend is wetter, not drier. The period 1900-50 is drier than the period 1951-2000. OTOH the climate models say that the reverse is happening. Quelle suprise!

We’re also paying for three useless desalination plants. Not much change from $10 billion. Which Dr Flannery is at least partly responsible for in my view.
The biggest, in Melbourne, is ‘way over budget and has not yet been completed because it has been raining so much the builders haven’t been able to work on it. Irony, what irony?

…And. we have desal plants at Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane & a now axed pipeline from the Murray to Melbourne, a temporary dam to prevent salt accumulating in the lower Murray River Lakes, also now dismantled…all these items at huge costs…when rivers and dams have been full or nearly full for close to;2 or 3 years. Much of NSW-NE VIC resembles an inland sea, green grass abounds in the outback and this is the third year in a row of floods and record rains in many areas of Central and Eastern Australia.

On top of all that we have now some very expensive desalination plants that ‘cannot be stopped’ and with the dam overflowing, their output sort of just runs back into the ocean.

The fellow has amazing nerve. If there was not a ‘scientific’ expectation for a decrease in rainfall, various state governments would not have spent billions on desalination plants. The Queensland state government has now mothballed theirs. The New South Wales state government is investigating it’s contractual arrangements to see if it can mothball it’s one. The Victorian State government’s plant has not yet been finished, because construction delayed due to wet weather. If no experts were warning against dramatic and short term reductions in rainfall, why the huge rush to build these plants and who exactly did these various governments actually listen to? Are we expected to believe they acted against the recommendations of experts?

When its hot and dry its due to ‘Climate Change’.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/29/us-australia-heat-idUSTRE50S0OA20090129?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
When its cold and wet it’s due to La Nina
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-04/la-nina-leads-to-third-wettest-year-on-record/3758114

Breganza has responded to Franks. I do not feel licensed to quote from it, but as I understand it, his argument is that the quotes I’ve produced don’t come from oficial documents but scientists speaking unofficially to journalists without context or the ability to correct errors.
So that CSIRO press release in October 2010 and the CSIRO newsletter in 2007 don’t count as “official documents”? **face palm**

What goes on in Australia by the climate science community is a disgrace. Reputable science organisations have these taxpayer sponsored get-togethers during a 7 year drought and conclude:
-They suggest that global warming, being caused mostly by humans, is causing a permanent shift to drier conditions in Australia. They say this so that more deslanation dams are built, and less dams (at least 2 were mothballed-one in Victoria, one in NSW), using taxpayer funded money (most of which comes frrom mining, which they are also generally against).
-The Murray Darling river system they claim is in dire straits, during the 7 year drought, again, they claim, being caused mainly by humans causing a shift to permanent drought. (It promptly flooded the last 2 years). They assumed, like a really bad investor, that a past trend simply means that such a trend will continue. Perhaps, instread of taking money from the taxpayer, every climate science initiative has to involve personal money invested by climate scientists-I wonder then if they would be investing their own money buying back water for the now naturally flooded Murray-Darling Basin.
-Tim Flannery claimed the dams would never be full again, partly because of the permanent shift to drier conditions, and partly because the soil was too hot (the have since nearly all filled and flooded). Never have I seen a reputable scientist be so stupid, and so out of balance. If he cant correctly assess the (lack of) relationship between soil temperature and water runoff, then how can he correctly assess the relationship between something like CO2 and temperature. (The answer is he can’t, he has made a career mostly out of pandering to the prejudices of the left (you know green good, mining bad; renewable energy good industrialisation bad ; irrigation and dams bad desalination plants good etc etc), which is now causing him trouble when people are actually checking his now defunct claims).
-They claim the drought was unprecedented, it wasnt. There was a 7 year drought from 1895-1902 called the Federation Drought, and Plimer correctly showed longer droughts up to 10 years or more which have occurred further in the past.
-They failed to acknowledge that the drier conditions and less cloud cover was also contributing to the apparent temperature warming, the 7 years of drought were particularly warm partly because there were less cloouds and less rain.They never mentioned this anywhere, attributing the 7 year warm period to humans and C02, without looking at the cloud cover. The last 2 years have been noticeably cooler in Australia, which they now correctly note is partly because there is more clouds and more rain. (So when its cooler its because of clouds, but when its warmer its not because of less clouds, but because of C02).
Amongst other things, Flannery has claimed and got wrong in the past:
-in the 1990s in the book the Future Eaters he claimed that Aaustrlaia shoudn’t invest in mineral resources because they were in decline and likely to run out soon. They have since boomed.
-in 2011 in the book the Natural History of Planet Eearth he claimed that mineral desposits (he doesn’t say which ones) are created by microorganims taking minerals out of sea-water-on behalf of gaia- to make the oceans clean, which are then sometimes uplifted and taken out the hills to poison the water again by miners. Most mineral deposits are formed by nature itself-by tectonic and magmatic (ie volcanic) processes, and have nothing to do with micoorganimss in the sea In fact in the entire book, about the geology of the earth, he doesnt mention volcanoes hardly or at all, because in general volcanoes do not generally sit well with the ideology of the green movement. How you can write a book about the geological history of the planet without mentionng volcanoes is beyond me. He also suggests and support the idea that gaia made the crust through the action of microorganisms as a kind of shell, and the atmosphere as a kind of cocoon, which we are now destroying. He also claims mining is the biggest threat to humans and the enviroment, (his standard few pages against mining in virtually every book he writes so as to pander to the prejudices of the green left, something bad must be said about big, bad, evil mining which is going to make the sky fall down and destroy the world. He never once mentions what mining does for Australia, and the world in general (e.g. funds for hospitals, schools, welfare etc), nor that societies are simply unsustainable without it).
A scientist not happy with the general climate science comunity in Australia.
T