Australians just aren't going to know what rainfall is

While the Waragamba dam overflows in NSW, and the Sydney Morning Herald reports…

‘Unprecedented amount of rain’: flood evacuations after Sydney dam spills

Waragamba dam overflows for the first time in years. The last time Warragamba Dam was full was in 1997.

…and many Australians wonder just what the hell they ARE paying drought doomsayer turned discredited climate commissioner Tim Flannery for…at  Andrew Bolt’s blog, he writes about some of the BS that have come from warmists who said a few years back that Australia would not see rain like this again, but they won’t admit it now. I don’t usually repost articles in entirety, but Mr. Bolt uses WUWT material regularly, so I don’t think he’ll mind and this needs to be seen. These scientists are shameless.

The quotes that warmists claim don’t exist

By Andrew Bolt

I’ve already written about the deception in this piece by Anthony Sharwood, who falsely claims sceptics accuse alarmist scientist of saying it “would never rain again”.

The accusation is inherently preposterous. Never rain again? In fact, the accusation – and the truth – is that many warming alarmists claimed we’d get less rain, with some even tipping a “permanent drought” and empty dams. See the quotes here.

But I’ve since been sent even more quotes that suggest Sharwood was hoodwinked by the National Climate Centre – or that the NCC itself is incapable of proper research.

Let’s focus on the highlighted part of Sharwood’s defence of climate scientists:

Dr Karl Braganza of the National Climate Centre… says that any prediction whatsoever of higher or lower rainfall as a result of climate change is complete bunkum.

That’ll come as a surprise to those who promoted the straw man argument that the climate scientists all told us in the midst of the drought that it would never rain again.

In fact, the reputable scientists never said anything of the sort.

“I have trawled everything we put out to see if someone from one of our offices said anything like this, but no, we definitely never put out statements that it would never rain again,” says Dr Karl.

“The scientists at the BoM (Bureau of Meteorology)and CSIRO made continuous statements that the drought will end, and that [the dry spell in the 2000s] wasn’t permanent…”

Here’s all of that in a nutshell. No one reputable ever said it wouldn’t rain again. All they said is, it’s getting warmer and we don’t really know what comes next. Maybe it’s more rain. Maybe it’s less. We’re still working on that.

No predictions were made about future rainfall? Any predictions were “bunkum”? “We’re still working on that”?

The barest research of statements by the Bureau of Meteorology or the CSIRO by Sharwood or Breganza would have revealed all that to be nonsense. Spokesmen of both warmist insitutions said exactly what Breganza denies. Examples:

The Sydney Morning Herald in 2008:

This drought may never break

IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones….

“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back….”

The Bureau of Meteorology’s Jones to the University of East Anglia in 2007:

Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse…

The Bureau of Meteorology’s Jones in The Age in 2008:

Should Victorians view this drought as climate change? This drought is now far beyond our historical experience. It is very difficult to make a case that this is just simply a run of bad luck driven by a natural cycle and that a return to more normal rainfall is inevitable, as some would hope.

Climate change caused by humans is now acting to make droughts more severe and increasingly likely… Regardless of the underlying cause, the drought provides Victorians with a snapshot of a hot and dry future that we all will collectively face.

The Age in 2009:

A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…

‘’It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,’’ said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

‘’In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’…

CSIRO in June 2010:

Climate model projections for the coming decades indicate an increased risk of below average rainfall for south-eastern Australia….The current rainfall decline is in part attributed to climate change, raising the possibility that the current dry conditions may persist, and possibly intensify, as has been the case in south-west Western Australia.

CSIRO press release in October 2010:

Senator Wong said the findings of CSIRO’s South-West Western Australia Sustainable Yields (SWSY) Project were sobering… The research, which will inform key water planning and management decisions for Perth and the entire south-west of the state, found the region could face a 24 per cent reduction in surface water yields by 2030 under a median future climate, according to CSIRO project leader, Dr Don McFarlane.

CSIRO newsletter in 2007:

Southern Australia will continue to experience a reduction in rainfall in winter and spring, the impact of which will be magnified by increased temperatures…

“Our results provide strong evidence that rising temperatures, hence increasing evaporation due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, impact on Australia’s water resources, in addition to any reduction in rainfall.”

What could partially offset this is an increase in summer rainfall in south east Australia

And if the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO really had no idea if global warming would bring less water or more, why did they not say so when politicians built hugely expensive desal plants in expection of less rainfall, or warned farmers to prepare for more droughts?

Fact is, they called it wrong. And warmist scientists and journalists don’t want you to know it.


Climatologist Stewart Franks has written to Breganza to ask if he’d known of some of these statements. We will try to let you know how he responds.

(Thanks to reader Bob.)


Associate Professor Stewart Franks on Tim Flannery and the experts who were so wrong about our drier future:

However, it turns out that it is not just Flannery that has been making incorrect statements – many supposed experts including prominent commentators from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have been making equally incorrect statements. In principle, these people should really know better….

The mistake that Tim Flannery, as well as the numerous expert commentators made, was that they confused climate variability for climate change. The future impact of climate change is very uncertain, but when one “wants to believe”, then it is all too easy to get sucked in and to get it spectacularly wrong.

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.

I cannot say I’m impressed.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Keep doing this… keep reminding them of their statements, which were swallowed hook, line and sinker by a gullible media that force-fed it to the public. This is why I say, DON’T MUZZLE THEM… in fact, not only let them get both feet into their mouths, but make sure NOBODY FORGETS.
Their own words, their own ridiculous alarm-raising, will be their undoing.
Yeah, Australians won’t know what rain is… Canadians won’t know what ice is… Britons won’t know what snow is… really, really stupid statements, from all involved, and well documented. Can’t walk away from them.
Climate scientists won’t know what Science is… THAT’s a statement I stand behind…

Maekus Fitzhenry

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!


I see this all the time. Careful speaking to allow ‘plausible deniability’ somewhere down the line. Yet they know exactly what they are doing. Fraudsters.


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…

Richard Briscoe

Sounds like Breganza is resorting to the Zeigler defence.
Those with longer memories will recall how Nixon’s press secretary Ron Zeigler, when pressed on apparent conflicts between Nixon’s continuing statements on Watergate, declared that the latest statement was ‘operative’, and that all the earlier statements were ‘inoperative’.
I guess the quotes listed above are all now inoperative ?

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


Damn this internet thingy. It makes it far to easy to dredge up inconvient quotes.
Here in my part of New South Wales, Australia, we have seen the Sun once so far this March and are only up to three times the March average rainfall in the first 7 days. And if you want to see what good rain will do to a half complete dam have a look at –

BOM/CSIRO rainfall map here:
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!

cui bono

“The mistake that Tim Flannery, as well as the numerous expert commentators made, was that they confused climate variability for climate change”.
It’s a universal phenomenon. But surely by now, Mr. Flannery and his stooges in the media are saying that “no,no, we always said that climate change = floods”. Or at least, that this is “man-made climate *disruption* – expect more droughts and/or floods, er, and any other type of weather, and they’re all our fault”.
AGW is a shape-shifting monster that has co-opted the weather, any weather, to it’s cause. My deep sympathies to the Aussies.

Bruce of Newcastle

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?

I have a similar story brewing over at my site.
I know, I haven’t posted anything in 6 months,
but there really hasn’t been anything to post about.
I am working on a larger story at the moment and
it takes up a considerable amount of my energy.
So, for now, I thought I would include this story as a sidebar
to this story you just posted Anthony.
Just like Flannery is being caught telling lies and half-truths,
another story of double speak comes from Terry Marsh.
Marsh is the lead scientist at CEH and if we didn’t know better,
we could say that he has changed his tune on Climate Change.
But fortunately, Al Gore’s internet has the real story of
lies and deceit that has become synonymous among alarmists.
I call the story,”Following the Trail of Nonsense.” I thought I would
work of one of your stories and use a similar line.
I hope you don’t mind.
Its a simple article. Man supports CAGW. Man gets paid millions supporting CAGW
with quotes of its worse than we thought. To, Oh, by the way, rising sea levels and flooding
in the British river ways is a NATURAL PHENOMENA!
You will find it entertaining.
I can only hope that there comes a rebuttal from Marsh.
Things could get interesting.
Good Day!

…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.


As I sit here in Sydney, it is just after 8pm and it is raining. In fact it has been raining almost every day for a few weeks now, and I do not mean drizzle. It is rain. Saves me having to water the garden I suppose …
I think we may have to become used to years without a summer, just like this year.

Christopher Hanley

“…..his argument is that the quotes I’ve produced don’t come from oficial [sic] documents but scientists speaking unofficially to journalists without context or the ability to correct errors…”.
Oh, of course, there I was, thinking it was the mentioned scientists’ fault that we’re stuck with these white elephantine desal plants, or the credulous politicians’ fault, and all the time it was the journalists’ fault. Oh, it’s so obvious now. I’ve seen the light! Well, they must be punished then, mustn’t they?
Seriously though, what a pitiful excuse.


Here is the definition of failure –
(Dr.) David Jones, of the Australian BoM, February 2009:
“VICTORIA is likely to come under the influence of another El Nino within the next three years, exacerbating the drought and the likelihood of bushfires, a senior Bureau of Meteorology climate scientist says.
David Jones, the head of the bureau’s National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or 2011.
“We are in the build-up to the next El Nino and already the drought is as bad as it has ever been — in terms of the drought, this may be as good as things get,” Dr Jones said.”
February, 2012 Australian BoM:
“Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Peter Newham said February rainfall tended to come in bursts, and this was second year Victoria had received a February drenching as a result of the La Nina weather conditions.”
Give that man a medal:

Hartog van den Berg

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.

Bloke down the pub

”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.”
I’m sure they can show how they attempted to correct the false impression that had been created. Or not.

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?

Philip Bradley

A previous discussion on Australian drought predictions by the CSIRO
It contains a rather precise prediction from CSIRO scientists.
“CSIRO statistician Dr Yun Li and climate physicists Professor Jianping Li and Juan Feng from the Chinese Academy of Sciences remark that since the mid-1970s south-west Western Australia has seen a 15-20 per cent decrease in average winter rainfall, from 323 mm in 1925-1976 to 276 mm from 1976-2003.
South-west WA – a vast area which includes Perth, the Margaret River wine region and the West Australian wheat belt – receives most of its annual rainfall during winter from passing cold fronts and storms. However, since the mid-1970s, the number of storms in the region have decreased leading to less rainfall with the drier conditions being exacerbated due to more high pressure systems entering the area.
Modelling suggests a decrease in mean annual rainfall of 7 per cent and a 14 per cent reduction in surface water runoff in the period 2021 to 2050 relative to the period 1961 to 1990. If current climate trends continue, south-west WA will potentially experience 80 per cent more drought-months by 2070.”

However, in the last couple of years we have seen annual rainfall in southwestern Australia return to long term average levels. And as I observe in the thread above, we saw a similar period of low rainfall early in the 20th century, after which wetter periods returned.
I also recall another thread which unfortunately I can’t find where I debated a CSIRO scientist who stated that the CSIRO advised the Western Australia government in the 1970s not to extend the agricultural areas eastward as in the future these areas would not receive enough rainfall to make agriculture viable due to ‘climate change’.


There is quite a bit of historical revisionism going on among associate Team members in Australia at present. A notable acolyte is David Jones of the formerly esteemed Bureau of Meterology (quoted above), who was a bit player in the Climategate 2 emails:
Mr Jones has been quiet of late – perhaps he is baling water out of his house and yard, as large parts of eastern Australia are currently flooded. But he still has his well paid job at public expense advocating for The Cause.
Thanks for giving a plug to Andrew Bolt, who has copped years of odium as an alleged Gaia-hating, grandchild-destroying shill of Big Fossil Fuel. And they are some of the nicer things that his opponents have said about him.


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**

“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.
I cannot say I’m impressed.”
The newspaper is an official document. If there is something written factually incorrect then the jounalists and editors are up for libel or fraud if they don’t print a redaction or correction. The people who provided the quotes did not protest on the written word so it is fact that these people said what was written.
Everybody in Australia knows that the Australian climate teamsters are fools anyway.


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.

Patrick Davis

This guy make me angry everytime he’s on a newscast, or ABC propaganda show. He’s on AU$180k p/a, part-time, for this drivel. Victoria, New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland have all deployed desal plants due, largely, to his advice. Here in NSW the desal plant output has been reduced from 250M/l to only 40M/l per day, yet our water bills rise to pay out the contracts to private operator. If ever Flannery is dicovered to have “vested interests” in desal plants, he’ll pay for it dearly I am sure. Gillard and The Greens really have doing themselves and the country a huge diservice. Anyway, Tim reminds me of this Harry Enfield character…


I sit here, in Sydney, with the rain pouring down outside. It has been flooding in NSW, VIC & South East Queensland (about 65% of Australia’s populated areas) for the last few weeks. Not only that, but we have a tax, for everybody who earn over $A150k, to pay for LAST year’s floods.
The Australian government is still buying back water rights from farmers and other agricultural businesses, ostensibly to ‘save’ the drought stricken Murray-Darling river system (this river system, for those of you who don’t know Australian geography, is pretty much the supply system for – yep, you guessed it – NSW, VIC & South East QLD) – two years in flood.
We have been told again, and again, that the ‘drought’ is the new normal; many people (probably more correctly ‘sheeple’), still believe this. This is undoubtably due to to the mis-representations of our Socialist Government, the CSIRO, the Bureau Of Meteorology and severe alarmists such as our climate ‘commissar’ Dr Tim Flannery.
Each of NSW, VIC & QLD have built desalination plants, ostensibly to provide drinking water to water distressed cities, over the last 5 years. I don’t know the QLD experience but in both NSW & VIC, the operators are being paid to pump the product (water) straight into the ocean, as the dams are overflowing! Interestingly, I believe, that the VIC operator successfully sued the VIC government last year, as the de-sal plant was built in a flood plain (really – I’m not making this up!)
One of Australia’s most beloved poets, Dorothea Mackellar OBE wrote one of Australia’s best known poems (first published in 1908) that has, at it’s heart, that most Australian’s can quote, the following part-stanza:
“I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.”
Do you think that these numpties (see numpty, under slang in an Aussie dictionary) will ever learn or admit defeat?

Patrick Davis

Interesting pictures here which show nature deals with bad weather events…


It begs the question what advice the government has been following if these remarks are “”unofficial” If the comments are wrong then what is the official position? No one contradicted them at the time of publication. Perhaps Dr Karl Braganza could enlighten us?

John Marshall

These alarmists started by predicting climate 100 years in the future knowing that noone would be around to check. Then they got cocky and started to reduce the time scale. Now they have been caught out they are on the back foot trying to work out an excuse that fits with their CAGW scenarios.
Grow up and move into the real world.

‘Unprecedented amount of rain’: flood evacuations after Sydney dam spills
Predicted February 29th …
Let the climatologists stick to what they do best – predicting weather, not climate.
BTW, there’s been a slight delay with my paper using physics to debunk the greenhouse effect, but the reviewers are happy with it and the launch is expected next week sometime.

m seward

What is truly bizarre about all these dire predictions from these rabbits ( a feral pest in Australia and accordingly a general term of contempt ) is that the Australian Bureau of meteorology rainfall record, available on line to anyone, clearly shows an INCREASE in rainfall on a continental basis of about 20% since 1900 and even the Murray Darling basin saw an increase over that period. Only two regions saw a rainfall decrease, SW Western Australia and Tasmania, although the latter starts with about twice the rainfall as the mainland and only lost a few %.
To check for yourself, go to and pay with the parameters.
These reckless, headline grabbing utterances that Andrew Bolt sets out, when set against the official BOM record, are clear evidence that thse buffoons will say anything that suits their narrative without any evidentiary basis and with an arrogance that sees no need to actually check if they might be wrong.

Alex the skeptic

Winston dialled ‘back numbers’ on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother’s speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened. Or again, The Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a ‘categorical pledge’ were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.
As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.


My favourite quotation, following the last link in the article, comes from a publication called the ‘The Conversation’ which, according to Bishop Hill, is the Australian site for academic discourse where only climate orthodoxy can be aired. It says, refreshingly :
The conditions were so bad that Tim Flannery, now Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”
Fast forward to 2012 and we see widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping. Indeed, the rainfall that we had last year not only filled Brisbane City’s Wivenhoe Dam water supply storage, but also all of its flood mitigation capacity. The resultant releases of water required to prevent a truly catastrophic dam failure contributed to the inundation of large parts of metropolitan Brisbane.
The worm turns.

Thingadonta & Ricardo
If you want to help the situation in Australia, contact me via email (as on ) as an important launch is planned next week.
Doug (in North Rocks, Sydney)


Alex the skeptic says:
March 7, 2012 at 2:53 am

Oh yes, and Tony Abbot is pre-eminent in re-writing his views!
“His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with “Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weathervane on this, but . . .”.
Yesterday on radio he said climate change was real and that “humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it”.
“I mean, that’s my position and that’s always been my position but I’ve never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.
But he backed an ETS when a minister in the cabinet of John Howard. The Howard government took an ETS to the 2007 election and it continued to be Coalition policy in Opposition.
In October 2009, Mr Abbott said: “We don’t want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS.”
And in November that year he said: “You can’t have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time.”
In December 2009, Mr Turnbull wrote of his leadership successor, “Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the (ETS), the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it.
I heard somewhere, really can’t recall where, that Oz had been earmarked some time ago to be the new HQ of UN government – it will be a bit warmer than New York in the coming decades. Something about a new ‘houses of parliament’ built which is oversize for present requirements? And guest list for opening rather odd. Will see if I can find anything on this, unless someone here knows about it.


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.

This begs the question of why did the Australian government[s] build expensive desalination plants (no abandoned)?
One of the reasons for growing scepticism is not because WUWT and other sceptics are spreading ‘misinformation’ but because people were given predictions and alarming statement, today, they can see with their own lying eyes the outcome. Britons were told to expect milder winters, less snow etc. This is why people are turning away from the CAGW scare. It’s just the weather.
For anyone who is interested here is a history of Australian droughts with explanations as to why is if often drought prone.


“AGW is a shape-shifting monster that has co-opted the weather, any weather, to it’s cause.”

This is because global mean temperature ‘rise’ has stalled for well over a decade. If it continues to fail to rise or begins declining then expect more “weather is now climate” nonsense. The are fighting desperately to keep the Global Warming Climate Change religion alive, and it’s just sad and weary. They wouldn’t let go even if we entered another mini-ice age, these are the kinds of fraudster we are dealing with.

richard verney

It may well be the case that many billions of dollars has been squandered because of a failure to appreciate what was simply nothing more than multidecadal variation.
What one needs to see is what advice was given to governments. Who took the decision to build the dams and desal plamts and on the basis of what advice?
I consider that some FOIs addressed to some governmental departments is what is needed to pin this down..


I see this denial as a big opportunity. The warmists are in fact starting to blame the MSM.
Once the MSM realizes they are now used as the scapegoat for the lies that were told,
they will hit back hard.
Ladies and gentlemen, the endgame has begun!


I’d love those warmists from BoM and CSIRO go out to northern Victoria and southern NSW right now and tell those trapped farmers and townships along the Murrumbigee River that they said it would never rain and the basin would collapse years ago. As a consequence many councils in the basin didn’t upgrade levee’s and establish flood relief and flood assistance programs (no need if it’s not going to rain again).
They’re paying for it now with between 10-15 metres of flood waters destroying the basin.


Maekus Fitzhenry: March 7, 2012 at 12:31 am
“…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….”
This is the good news Maekus!!
But… the bad news is Abbott also wants to cancel any mining tax:
Mining – BHP, RIO, Woodside Petroleum, Newcreast Mining and Fortescue Metals own 75% of all mining activities in Australia – all are majority owned by overseas investors.
Further: 67 shareholders own 68% of Rio Tinto, and 78 shareholders own 59% of BHP.
Over the next ten years pre-tax profits for mining will likely be around $600 billion; at present levels of foreign ownership around $500 billion of these profits will end up in the hands of foreign owners.

Frederick Davies

Another Climate FAIL File?


I’m sure they’ll either spin the rain and floods as proof of climate change or alternately that it’s a blip on the radar, a natural result of climate chaos due to AGW, and the drought will return as “hardly interrupted” , blah, blah, blah…..

Cassandra King

It is a fact that the Australian decision to build desalination plants was based and founded on reports undertaken by the so called climate community experts. The reports are open to scrutiny, those individuals and institutions involved are named. And they got it wrong, they were about as wrong as they could be, they started on a false supposition, that the climate models and the UN IPCC reports were correct and reliable and to be believed.
The Australian government asked for and received a high confidence level assessment that desalination plants were essential, that the consensus dictated that a warming world would mean a drier Australia. And those involved gave that high confidence level assessment, they were mistaken, about as mistaken as its possible to get. Those involved in the assessment received a great deal of funding from the taxpayer, they took the funding and spent it and for the money the public were sold what amounted to a half arsed ill thought out shambles based on computer models.
Now here is the rub folks, the Australian people paid for the assessment studies and paid generously indeed and they paid for desal units they didnt require and they paid handsomely for them. Is anyone involved going to pay? Will anyone at all be investigated and punished? In the USA a Ponzi scammer is going to spend the rest of his life in prison and his fraud was worth around ten billion. The fraudsters and scammers and Charlatans involved in the desal plants and those who worked so hard to oppose dams and reservoirs all not face any sanction whatsoever, those who made money will keep it, those who gained position and influence will keep it. So long as these people can escape any retribution or sanction for their actions they will pop up again and again like a cold sore.

Paul R

The problem we have here in Australia is that we’re actually dealing with a real climate and have been since Henry Lawson’s day. We don’t need and don’t deserve activists acting as scientists muddying the water when It’s scarce and pretending they can’t see it when they’re up their necks in it. We can’t really afford these idiots any more.
” The skies are brass and the plains are bare,
Death and ruin are everywhere;
And all that is left of the last year’s flood
Is a sickly stream on the grey-black mud;
The salt-springs bubble and the quagmires quiver,
And this is the dirge of the Darling River. ”
The Song Of The Darling River 1889 Henry Lawson 1837 – 1922


The trouble with Tim Flummery and his ilk is they likely cut poetry classes as lads and if they hadn’t they would have understood completely what a 19 year old country girl from Gunnedah in NSW pined for in 1904 from faraway England-
The new graduazzi ignorati busy rewriting history while expunging the classics and ramming it down the throats of innocent primary schoolers. All I can say is pay particular attention to the Stranger Danger lessons kiddies and ask your grandparents about the rest of the stuff.


Bolt proves Judge Finklesteins censorship can’t come soon enough.

Ask anyone living in the southern hemisphere around the pacific: It rains during summertime up to march or april, in the places where it usually rains, then it ends until the next year. Anything else is not science, less witchcraft (shamans really know about it).
This case is the same as the one in England where the MET Office said that children would have to be taught about what snow was, as they would not see any.


Note that Mr Sharwood said only that ‘ ..reputable scientists never said anything of the sort’. Nothing in that statment about the disreputable ones 🙂


“unofficial” statements? Oh, well, then. Never mind. Seriously, though? These people were only quoted because of their official capacity. No way would the media have given them space if they had insisted on even the usual charade that they were offering only a private opinion not reflective of the institutions they represent and often lead.
Pull the other one, Breganza.