Australians just aren't going to know what rainfall is

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?

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?

‘Unprecedented amount of rain’: flood evacuations after Sydney dam spills
Predicted February 29th …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-2/#comment-908048
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.

!984-(revisted?)
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.

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

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.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html

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’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.

Another Climate FAIL File?
FD

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.

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.

“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.