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