Skip navigation

Just before we get started:

Tim Flannery’s comments on water shortages in Perth have been supported in The Australian and by Colin Barnett, Liberal Party Premier Of Western Australia, here. And TF does not believe that the planet Earth is a living God or self-aware entity named Gaia.

Due to his high profile, Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery is a favoured target of Climate Denialists. In this post I will compare comments made by Flannery against the intentionally distorted versions of his comments put forward by the denialist commentariat.

First, Flannery did not say that Australian dams will never fill again. Andrew Bolt, misrepresenting Flannery, draws attention to a Feb 2007 Landline interview with Flannery in which Flannery said:

even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time for any reason from the date Flannery was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections

Flannery’s comments were to the effect that Australia was at the time currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation and that this would be indicative of what we could eventually expect as a consistent and normal outcome in the future.

He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends.

Flannery’s quote in context is:

We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams.

Minister For Climate Change, Penny Wong, stated in a Lateline interview 2nd September 2008:

by 2050 that Australia should expect around about a 25 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern part of Australia.

Flannery, by starting his Landline comments with ‘We’re already seeing the initial impacts’ places Australia’s (then) current 20% decline in rainfall in relation to the IPCC projections, exactly as Senator Wong did.

In fact it is Flannery’s usual practice to speak of climate and rainfall trends in the context of a 50 year projection. His Landline comments of 2008 perfectly mirror remarks he made to the Sydney Futures forum in 2004 in which he extrapolated Sydney rainfall data into the next half-century to warn of highly adverse outcomes if currently observed climate effects were to be continued to be ignored. More on that statement below.

Climate Change Entails Heavier Flooding

As Climate Change Commissioner, Flannery is perfectly aware that intensified but rarer flooding constitues part of IPCC modelling. As such it is patently absurd to state that Flannery believes Australia will never again experience floods or that dams will never fill again.

In asserting that Flannery believes Australia’s dams will never fill again, Bolt would have us believe that Flannery is aware of only the ‘drying’ aspects of Climate Change and is unaware of the ‘wetting’ aspects. This shows how dishonestly Bolt handles the Climate Change topic.

For the benefit of denialists like Bolt I produce here an extract, via Deltoid, from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)

To summarize the rainfall results, drier conditions are anticipated for most of Australia over the 21st century. However, consistent with conclusions in WGI, an increase in heavy rainfall also is projected, even in regions with small decreases in mean rainfall. This is a result of a shift in the frequency distribution of daily rainfall toward fewer light and moderate events and more heavy events. This could lead to more droughts and more floods.

To pretend, as Bolt does, that Flannery is unaware of this is shamefaced dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation of Flannery.

In fact, in 1997 the IPCC Special Report on Regional Impacts of Climate Change noted specifically that Enhanced groundwater recharge and dam-filling events were expected from more frequent high-rainfall events.

Water Supply and Hydrology: Possible overall reduction in runoff, with changes in soil moisture and runoff varying considerably from place to place but reaching as much as ±20%, was suggested for parts of Australia by 2030. Sharpened competition was expected among water users, with the large Murray-Darling Basin river system facing strong constraints. Enhanced groundwater recharge and dam-filling events were expected from more frequent high-rainfall events, which also were expected to increase flooding, landslides, and erosion.

We can see here that Flannery’s 2007 Landline interview is basically a direct citation of this 1997 report. To wit: decreased water run-off from soils resulting in a 20% decrease in water flow into dams by 2030 i.e.over a 25-year projection (not immediately), that conditions in 2007 were indicative of this expected long-term outcome. And, incidentally, that this will occur in conjuction with more frequent flooding.

Of course, Bolt’s purpose is not to discredit Flannery, per se. It’s to discredit Climate Science and the IPCC. That Bolt can only attempt to do so through dishonesty shows that both Flannery and the IPCC inhabit a more secure intellectual and moral position than Bolt.

Flannery The Fundamentalist

A second smear against Flannery is that he is untrustworthy, indeed irrational religious kook, because he believes that the Planet Earth is a living God or self-aware entity named Gaia. The right-wing Australian smear think tank ‘Institute For Public Affairs’ published an article concentrating on this smear some time ago. The undated article written by James Paterson, their Director of Communications, is entitled Tim Flannery, Climate Prophet. Paterson wrote:

When appearing on the ABC’s Science Show in January this year, Flannery said: ‘This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.’

To be fair, Flannery is not the only scientist to embrace the kooky theory that Gaia has human properties.

Paterson thus states that Flannery believes the planet Earth has a brain and nervous system. Flannery does not believe this. Paterson is guilty of lazy research here, but his overall objective is to paint Flannery as a crackpot so I doubt he was trying very hard to genuinely understand Flannery’s conception of the Gaia hypothesis.

In fact, Flannery does not think that the Earth has a brain or nervous system. What Flannery says is that human beings, really scientists, constitute the Earth’s metaphorical or virtual brain and that the Internet has the capacity to constitute the Earth’s metaphorical or virtual nervous system and that therefore humans may potentially be able regulate the Earth’s eco-systems via planet-wide computer networks and other technologies. In other words Flannery’s view of the ‘strong Gaia’ is technocratic and scientific, not religious.

Really James Paterson should be ashamed of smearing Flannery in such a way. It reflects badly on both himself and the IPA and lessens its credibility as a serious researching entity.

Here is Flannery explaining his Gaia hypothesis to Robert Manne at Latrobe University 4th June 2009

Robert Manne:
I wondered first for the audience if you could give a reasonable succinct view of what [James Lovelock’s] conception of Gaia is and then I want to talk about your book a bit in regard to that.

Tim Flannery:
[…] Just over the last decade Gaia is on the threshold of acquiring a brain and that’s happened because the internet and changes in human society have for the first time ever, allowed us theoretically to deliver a single, strong message to Gaia, what we want from Gaia. And also, after four billion years, we have got now the intelligence to see Gaia from space and to actually enhance its working parts…

Robert Manne:
Is what you’re saying then, that human beings have to somehow become the regulator? Of processes that once we were not able to control or didn’t feel the need to control or whatever?

Tim Flannery:
By virtue of the process of evolution humans are destined to become the regulator.

Robert Manne:
And it connects, doesn’t it, to this idea of yours which is the capacity of human beings now to see what has to be done and to do it. Is that it?

Tim Flannery:
That’s right and it’s already happening. It’s not like this is theoretic. We actually have built a system now that allows us to send a single strong message to the part of the carbon cycle we want to deal with.

Flannery The Alarmist

The same IPA article decries Flannery as an alarmist by stating that his predictions on climate events have been wildy astray. This ‘alarmist’ meme is dominant in the denialist commentariat in regards to Flannery so I will use Paterson’s article as representative of the willing distortions directed at Flannery.

25 Metre Sea Level Rise

Paterson ridicules Flannery for approvingly quoting NASA’s James Hanson on the possibility of a 25 metre sea-level rise due to catastrophic ice melt and notes that such an eventuality would take thousands of years to materialise given current melt rates.

Unfortunately Paterson does not realise that Flannery agrees that such a change could take hundreds or thousands of years to eventuate and so has misrepresented Flannery as stating 25 metre sea level rise is imminent.

Of course Hanson’s actual prediction is based on Earth’s millenia-long climate history and anticipates that timeframe for its realisation, but Paterson ignores that to pretend Hanson and Flannery is warning of an imminent, practically immediate, 25 metre rise in sea levels.

Cities Running Out Of Water

Paterson spends some time running through a list of Australian cities Paterson claims that Flannery predicts were destined for imminent catastrophe, but which of course still survive. In this Paterson attempts to portray Flannery as a kooky, Gaia-fundamentalist doomsday prophet.

Paterson wrote:

In 2004 [Flannery] predicted that ‘Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis.’ The following year, he said that Sydney could run out of water in as little as two years.

Undaunted by that botched prediction, he tried again in 2007, saying Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would ‘need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.’

Undeterred by their failure to dry-out, Flannery was at it again in 2008, arguing that ‘the water problem for Adelaide is so severe that it may run out of water by early 2009.’ Of course, even amid a severe drought, none of these cities have met Flannery’s doomsday scenarios.


Paterson plainly states that since Perth had not become a ‘ghost metropolis’ (in Flannery’s words) at the time of his article, then Flannery’s statement about Perth was kooky doomsday alarmism.

Paterson knows, however, that Flannery was not expecting immediate or imminent abandonment of Perth, but rather that he was describing a long-term step-trend of declining rainfall and water catchment. Flannery was not predicting, contra Paterson, the destruction of Perth within 5 or 6 years. The actual time-frame of his comments was 50 years. From the article to which Paterson refers:

[Flannery] said climate change tended to move in steps. In 1976, when the first step occurred, the south-western corner of Western Australia lost 20 per cent of its rainfall, and its catchment fell from 340 gigalitres to 111 gigalitres…In 1998, when the second step occurred, the world experienced the worst El Nino effect

Notice that Flannery describes Perth experiencing step-wise increases in climate change induced phenonema with two step experiences so far and 22 years between each step. On that trend we might experience a third step in approx 2020 and a fourth in 2042 with perhaps a fifth to knock Perth out in 2064. That would indicate a timeline of about 50 years from Flannery’s comments.

Paterson flatly misrepresents Flannery, artificially imposing a 5 or 6 year time scale, merely to better paint Flannery as a crackpot.

Of course, Flannery’s statements about the step trend decline in Perth’s water catchment and the inevitability of its exhaustion are fully supported by rainfall and catchment data (i.e. the real world) and by Perth’s city planners including Liberal Premier Colin Barnett. See here.


According to Paterson Flannery in 2005 said that Sydney could run out of water in as little as two years.. Flannery did not say this. What he said on ABC’s Lateline on 10th June 2005 was that if the prevailing drought conditions persisted then Sydney would have ‘extreme difficulties with water’

TIM FLANNERY: Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water

This is in consonance with his 2004 statement, made at the same time as his comments on Perth, that by approx. 2050 Sydney would have 60% less water.

The next 50 years offer Sydney the last chance to avoid catastrophic climate change that would devastate south-eastern Australia, the scientist Tim Flannery has warned.

Speaking last night at the State Government’s Sydney Futures forum, Dr Flannery warned of a city grappling with up to 60 per cent less water.

Again, Paterson flatly misrepresents Flannery merely to better paint him as a crackpot.

Brisbane, Adelaide

John Dawson, writing in Quadrant in August 2011, drew heavily on Paterson’s article in framing up Flannery in exactly the same terms as Paterson. Dawson a quote from Flannery in May 2007 where Flannery remarked that Brisbane and Adelaide could run out of water by the end of 2007. Since those cities did not run out of water by the end of 2007, Dawson characterises Flannery as an idiot doomsday alarmist.

Unfortunately for the credibility of Dawson and Paterson, Flannery was correct in his statements. In April 2007 Adelaide had 40 days of normal unrestricted usage available in its dams, an amount which could be extended to 30 weeks with restrictions. Seven months of restricted usage from the end of April means water supplies would be exhausted by yesr end 2007, just as Flannery said.

The source of this data is Professor Cullen of the Wentworth Group Of Concerned Scientists, speaking on ABC’s AM program April 21, 2007 “Adelaiade’s Water Supply Drying Up”

From the AM transcript:

NANCE HAXTON (AM): Adelaide’s water supply has now reached an unprecedented tipping point.

PETER CULLEN: Historically we’ve never seen anything like this, and this is the second year that we’ve had it. I mean, last year was the lowest inflows to the Murray on record, and I don’t think any of us thought we’d have one as low as that again. This one could be as low as last year again.

So the system is virtually empty.

NANCE HAXTON: Traditionally, Adelaide has sourced its water in varying proportions from the River Murray and the Mt Lofty Ranges. If one of those areas was suffering drought, the other source would be relied on more.


PETER CULLEN: You only have 40 days’ storages, because you always have had a reliable supply from the Murray, and so all the time you’ve been pumping from the Murray you don’t have to store a huge amount, so you haven’t got a big dam that you can sort of fill up or whatever. Now, if the Murray goes off then you have about 40 days left.

The portrayal of denialists like Dawson, Paterson and Bolt is that Flannery was saying ‘by years end the water will definitely all be gone and never return’. Of course, Flannery never said this. He said, ‘the situation is dire’ and recommends the construction of desalination plants to secure water supply. Denialists like Dawson can only sustain their ridicule of Flannery by deliberately twisting his words. Regrettably for the denialists, Flannery’s statements are firmly based in fact.

Campbell Newman Agreed With Flannery

And so it is with Brisbane. Contrary to Dawson and Paterson’s childish caricatures of Flannery as a hair-shirted lunatic who think that the Planet Earth is a gigantic human being, Brisbane’s water issues in 2007 were, as Flannery said, dire.

In this he had the agreement of all those responsible for Queensland’s water supply naturally including the Queensland Water Commission. In March 2007 the QWC forecast dam holdings of 5% by year end. Said then Premier Anna Bligh,

“I am advised by the Commission that, with the assistance of level 5 restrictions, we will have five per cent dam levels in December 2008…”

Dawson, Bolt and Paterson choose to elide all of the above from the record, and what is elided is that all experts, all water consumption and dam inflow data, the actual real-life situation facing Brisbane was exactly what Flannery said it was.

In April 2007 South-East Queensland existed on Level 5 Water restrictions and dams were down to 20% capacity. This fell to 17% in August 2007. Level 6 water restrictions were enforced from 23 November 2007 with the Queensland Water Commissionobserving a significant threat to sustainable and secure water supply in the South Eastern Queensland region because of extended severe drought conditions.

According to a certain Lord Mayor Campbell Newman it was the worst water supply crisis in living memory. Said Mr Newman,

Cr Newman said the cost of the drought was outpacing the cost of the North-South Bypass Tunnel – part of the TransApex bridge and tunnel scheme – as Brisbane poured hundreds of millions of dollars into water infrastructure.

He said water infrastructure projects were costing over $700 million.

“We have no option but to fund these water initiatives due to the water crisis,” Cr Newman said.

Ivory Tower Denialism

Bolt, Dawson and Paterson isolated and insulated in their Ivory Towers, content and well-fed in their chosen occupations as disseminators of absurd propaganda are freed from the real-life concerns of actually supplying water to a major city.

Mr. Newman, unlike them had real responsibilities to attend to, and acting on the same reality as described by Tim Flannery, took concrete actions to secure Brisbane’s water supply, committing the gigantic sum of $700 million to address what all were plainly experiencing as a crisis.

In this Newman acted in consonance with others for whom planning and securing the well-being of real-life humans was part of their job, the like-minded being Flannery as Climate Change Commissioner, the numerous Shire Council Mayors and the scientists of the CSIRO.

Flannery and Campbell were working from the same set of facts: a crisis requiring response. Which is why Flannery said, so absurdly reviled by Bolt:

“In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

Please note the difference between that statement by Flannery and Bolt’s block-headed distortion of it which was:

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains

Wrapping Up

We could continue to debunk the denialists slurs directed at Flannery but, in short, here is the story:

Flannery describes long-term trends which denialists willingly distort as as immediate statements about the present then excoriate Flannery because the present does not correspond to their distortions.

Flannery never said dams would never fill again.

What Flannery said was that in the long-term, commencing in about 2040, the normal rainfall situation will be that of long-term water shortage. Naturally this excludes floods and occasional wet years.

The IPCC’s climate change modelling predicts an increase in heavy rainfall events along with normalised hotter temperatures i.e. its a more extreme climate with both more intense droughts and more intense rainfall.

Flannery’s remarks about the water situations in Australian cities were to the effect that the water situation of those cities was dire and would continue to be precarious in to the future. He did not say that Australian cities would run out of water and never have water again. He did recommend desalination plants as a means of securing water supply.

Those remarks were supported by all data, all experts and represent the truth about the the water situation in Australian cities at that time.

Flannery never said it would never flood again.

Flannery is not a religious devotee of Gaia.

In short Bolt, Dawson and Paterson enagage in systematic and deliberate untruths about Flannery and it is they who merit portrayal as hair-shirted religious lunatics, not him.

The denialists are attempting to defend their entrenched anti-Green and/or knee-jerk anti-regulatory ideologies by the basic strategy of character assassination of Flannery. To do so they distort Flannery’s statements, ridicule him without foundation and ignore sound science. Their campaign would be pitiable if it were not so destructive.


I emailed James Paterson of the IPA and also Tim Flannery seeking comment on the above remarks. You’ll be the first to know if they respond and give permission for their remarks to be published.

James Paterson Responds (Almost)

James Paterson of the IPA gave me the courtesy of responding by email but refused to engage in discussion about his article. Paterson’s rationale was that since my blog said he was a denialist then there was no point discussing anything with me because my mind was already made up about him.

In my view Paterson is hiding from critique.

Yes, I think Paterson is a denialist but this does not prevent he and I from engaging in debate about Flannery’s statements or about how Paterson characterises Flannery.

In my view Paterson is merely closing the curtains inside his Ivory Tower, steadfastly determined to remain insulated from critique.


    • Joe Hixson
    • Posted April 6, 2013 at 9:31 am
    • Permalink

    Thank you for writing this article. Having read of Tony Abbott’s plans to consider ending Tim Flannery’s role, the papers seem to be repeating some of the claims about Flannery’s “wrong predictions”. It seems that Andrew Bolt will be featuring some new falsehoods on The Bolt Report tomorrow (I wonder whether they will actually be new, or just repeats of the usual). Not having been aware of the actual statements made by TF, I went online to try and find the actual quotes as a starting point to assessing whether or not he was actually wrong. Needless to say, a search of his name comes up with dozens of denialist sites and blogs making the same tired and baseless claims. I had always thought it highly unlikely that TF would make claims that were not supported by the science and IPCC predictions. You’ve saved me a lot of time, in proving me right.

    • baraholka1
    • Posted April 6, 2013 at 9:50 am
    • Permalink

    Hi Joe,

    Thanks for dropping by.

    The Bolt Report Flannery ‘expose’ sounds like Bolt co-operating with Abbott’s announcement that he will abolish the Climate Change Commission of which Flannery is the Chairman.

    Funny how Bolt’s expose immediately follows Abbott’s announcement. Of course, Gina Reinhardt funds both Abbott and Bolt. Patently its a campaign.

    Best Regards,


    • Tim
    • Posted July 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
    • Permalink

    why do you lie?

    • baraholka1
    • Posted July 9, 2013 at 11:03 am
    • Permalink

    Hi Tim,

    Thanks for dropping by.
    Which particular piece of information in the post do you think is incorrect and why ?



  1. Ha. He’s lies have caught up with him and now he is gone. Sorry but all your doing is playing semantics. This guy was a climate change hack and a scaremonger. Australia will be better off without him

    • baraholka1
    • Posted September 21, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    • Permalink

    Hiya asfad,

    Thanks for taking the trouble to comment.

    Flannery has never lied on Climate Change.
    The Australian, however, has. Please see




    • LogicalReason
    • Posted September 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    • Permalink

    Hi Barra,

    Thank you for a well constructed article that really addresses the absurdity of the witch hunt that is going on.

    The Science is never meant to definitively say that the Global Climate is changing due to higher level of green house gases such as CO2. All that Science is saying is that with the body of evidence we currently have it overwhelmingly supports that Climate Change is happening faster than past records.

    There is no strong evidence that can stand up to peer review to suggest otherwise.

    It’s just that Scientist are not good at delivering the simple message and when competing against Sensationist journalist, the media and the threat of completely changing our lifestyles of course the message is not going to sit well with the public.

    The message must be repackaged to be delivered in a better way in order to affect change.

    • baraholka1
    • Posted September 24, 2013 at 12:54 am
    • Permalink

    Hi LogicalReason,

    Thanks for your comment.

    Yes, the threat of changing lifestyles is terrifying for many.

    In addition to this for the right-wing intelligentsia typified by the IPA, for the senior tranche of right-wing politicians like John Howard and their followers and disciples, especially conservative males over 55 years of age, Climate Change represents Existential Death, by which I mean an empirical proof that their belief system – Eternal Growth though Capitalism – is untenable. Even worse, that The Greens (hypocritical, unrealistic fantasist basket-weaving liars) have been correct all along.

    Climate Change is the death of the Capitalist Religion.

    No-one wants to Die. Therefore truth about Climate Change must be denied.

    I make the case here

    Best Regards,


    • Kirsty
    • Posted September 26, 2013 at 10:11 am
    • Permalink

    Thank you so much for this post! After watching the vilification of climate change the night Suzuki was on Q & A I realised how much work we have to do to educate the public.

    • baraholka1
    • Posted September 27, 2013 at 6:57 am
    • Permalink

    Onya Kirst,

    Drop in again occasionally.

    Best Regards,


    • PYC
    • Posted November 10, 2013 at 11:29 pm
    • Permalink

    Actually, what Flannery said is perfectly clear. He said that run-off into dams will decrease due to climate change. But he was not content to stop there. He felt the need to sensationalize and unambiguously made the prediction that, as a consequence, the dams will never be full again.

    Such people are surplus to requirements in this climate change discussion, and I am glad he is gone.

    • Jon Doig
    • Posted November 17, 2013 at 11:04 am
    • Permalink

    Good to see a rebuttal of these attacks.

    A couple of errors you might wish to correct:

    “The same IPCC article decries Flannery as an alarmist”


    • baraholka1
    • Posted November 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
    • Permalink

    You can lead an ideologue to context but you can’t make him think

    • baraholka1
    • Posted November 17, 2013 at 11:33 am
    • Permalink

    Thanks for the proof-reading, Jon.

    • David Lawrence
    • Posted April 14, 2014 at 11:41 am
    • Permalink

    tim flannery says lots of things that don’t make sense and makes predictions that don’t come true. he is a political puppet who has been manipulated by the labour/greens coalition. despite this affiliation he independently holds views that support climate outcomes which cannot be supported by appropriate climate research or world wide recognised climateoligists. He is a lone gun with his I’ll thought out predictions of severe drought and then, all of a sudden. severe flooding, depending on the current “CLIMATE”.
    Tim Flannery appears to be either disillusioned or a master of government welfare following years of further government welfare as a student or affiliate at several Australian universities.
    Thanks to Tony Abbott he is OFF the public payroll.

    • baraholka1
    • Posted April 27, 2014 at 9:41 am
    • Permalink

    Hi David,

    Flannery’s views are supported by every scientific body in the world worth the name.
    Climate Change Skepticism is supported by none.



    • David Lawrence
    • Posted April 30, 2014 at 9:31 am
    • Permalink

    Barra, whoever you are, you are an ignorant single minded person. I have done my research and what you state is not the truth. There are equal number of websites, papers, opinions, scientific statements about climate change. If you choose to believe it is happening then that is your choice. If you choose to deny it is happening then that is also your choice. This is Australia, not North Korea. The pendulum is swinging away from global warming – the IPCC admits there has been no warming for 17 years. Many scientists, climatologists and CSIRO employees have abandoned the concept of man made global warming and are questioning the validity of the IPCC reports and the UN’s statements on this issue.
    Many people who believe in AGW are also supporters of green and labour political parties. They are also people who believe the world is billions of years old and they believe in Darwin and dinosaurs and therefore, believe that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an ice age or maybe a meteor. Meteor idea not good as it lands on 1 side of the earth but all life dies on the other side as well. So, we believe in an ice age but now we believe in global warming. If the ice age killed everything then isn’t it better for the globe to warm than cool. Also, Britain and parts of Europe have recorded their coldest winter in 2013 in 60 years. So, is it global warming or just Australia warming?

    check out this link if you have an open mind

    • Michael Genrich
    • Posted September 22, 2016 at 12:08 pm
    • Permalink

    That’s the longest, most convoluted and one eyed defence of the fraud I have seen for a while. It falls apart everywhere, for example, there is absolutely no point in debating science with you when you label people deniers. None at all. It’s a real shame that crap like that clouds the emergence of smarter ways of living. But you somehow find a way to defend it?
    You’re on the wrong side of history, it’s ok to come back over to the right side, we won’t label, or muzzle you, we’ll just wait here.

    • baraholka1
    • Posted September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm
    • Permalink

    Hi Michael,

    Thanks for taking the trouble to leave a comment.
    Flannery’s views are supported by every scientific body in the world worth the name. See

    In your opinion, what is the best evidence against the AGW / Climate Change consensus of the international scientific community ?
    Also where does my article ‘fall apart’ ?

    I promise I will not call you a denier.

    Best Regards,

    • Paul Cuttell
    • Posted September 30, 2016 at 10:39 am
    • Permalink

    Just received the rainfall stats from a station out the back of Boulia in west Qld. Every month back to 1915. There are variations on rainfall from each decade – but no trend up or down. Could we all just get off the touchy feely rightous ignorance and look what is really happening (if anything) and focus on the real world issues. Population – plagues to come – the natural reaction of Earth to an anomaly (ie us) – and what we should be doing now to prevent the …..

    • baraholka1
    • Posted October 5, 2016 at 11:01 am
    • Permalink

    Hi Paul,

    Thanks for dropping by.

    Your rainfall data from Boulia is certainly relevant but constitutes only one data point. It is impossible to contend that the data from Boulia, indeed just one locality near Boulia, is representative of the rainfall pattern for the entire Australian continent.

    More to the point, the modelling of Climate Change effects for Australian rainfall predicts lower rainfall in South-Eastern and South-Western Australia and a wetter Northern Australia. This is exactly what is happening. Have a quick look at the 2015 report from The Australian Climate Council called ‘Thirsty Country: Climate Change And Drought In Australia’

    Fronts from the Southern Ocean,
    which typically bring rain across
    southern Australia during
    winter and spring, have shifted
    southwards with a warming
    climate, leading to declines in
    rainfall in southwest and southeast
    Australia and increasing the risk
    of drought conditions in
    these regions.

    Average annual stream flow into
    Perth’s dams has already decreased
    by nearly 80 percent since the

    The Western Australia Department of Water
    (2009) predicts a supply-demand annual
    deficit that is potentially as large as
    85 billion litres by 2030 for the Perth,
    goldfields and agricultural regions and
    some parts of the southwest.

    A deficit of 85 billion
    litres is equivalent to approximately
    30% of current water supply (WA Water
    Corporation 2014)

    The Australian Bureau Of Meteorology put out a ‘State Of The Climate‘ report in 2014. It is in accordance with Flannery’s arguments.

    It says:

    Australian average annual rainfall
    has increased since national records
    began in 1900…
    most markedly across the northwest.
    Southern Australia typically receives
    most of its rainfall during the
    cooler months of the year.

    In recent decades declines in rainfall have
    been observed in the southwest and
    in the southeast of the continent.

    Since 1970 there has been a 17 per cent
    decline in average winter rainfall in the
    southwest of Australia.

    The southeast
    has experienced a 15 per cent decline
    in late autumn and early winter rainfall
    since the mid-1990s, with a 25 per cent
    reduction in average rainfall across
    April and May. Declining rainfall in
    the southwest has been statistically
    significant over the recent period, and
    has occurred as a series of step changes.

    The cool season drying over southern
    Australia in recent decades, and
    evidence of increased rainfall over the
    Southern Ocean, is associated with
    changes in atmospheric circulation.

    While natural variability likely plays a
    role, a range of studies suggest ozone
    depletion and global warming are
    contributing to circulation and pressure
    changes, most clearly impacting on the

    Uncertainties remain, and
    this is an area of ongoing research.

    The reduction in rainfall is amplified in
    streamflow in our rivers and streams.
    In the far southwest, streamflow has
    declined by more than 50 per cent
    since the mid-1970s. In the far
    southeast, streamflow during the
    1997–2009 Millennium Drought was
    around half the long-term average.

    In regard to ‘touchy feely righteous ignorance’, I hope you recover from it quickly.
    In contrast, the data referenced in the post is drawn from actual measurements of Australian rainfall data and real-world events.
    It is also in accordance with what every significant scientific research institute on the planet expects.

    The post also reports what Flannery actually said as distinct from what Andrew Bolt or James Patterson say that Flannery said.

    Best Regards,

    • baraholka1
    • Posted November 21, 2016 at 11:51 am
    • Permalink

    @David Lawrence April 30, 2014

    Hi David,

    Thanks for taking the time to comment.

    Your link refers to a story concerning Professor Robert Stavins of Harvard.

    Stavins says that government officials (not climate scientists) fundamentally
    revised or rejected parts of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of
    IPCC Working Group 3 (Mitigation) of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The Working Group finalised its 2,000 page report in April 2014.

    The Summary For Policymakers is a 33 page summary of the 2,000 page report.
    Stavins says that the original draft of the summary contained a lot of detail
    on how international co-operation to curb emissions might work, and how it could be funded.
    The final version was much shortened, some sections reduced to mere headings
    with all details removed.

    Stavins says that the actual report (15 chapters comprising 2,000 pages) was untouched.
    Its just that the Summary (comprising 33 pages) was shorn of detail.
    This was done by government officials.
    Not by the Climate Scientists.
    In any case, the actual Report and of its data and methodology is untouched.

    David, Stavins DOES NOT say that the science of Climate Change was confected
    by Climate Scientists as some kind of hoax.

    In fact Stavins says:

    I want to emphasize that the IPCC’s Working Group III “Technical Summary” and the underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers. So, the crucial IPCC products – the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 – retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention


    So Stavins fully supports the science of Climate Change.

    Just to repeat that:
    Stavins says the summary of the particular report he was working on was shorn of detail so that
    governments would retain more freedom to negotiate mitigation options.

    This detail was edited by government officials, not climate scientists.
    The 2,000 page report itself was untouched.
    Stavins fully supports the science of Climate Change and advises that

    The underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers. So, the crucial IPCC products – the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 – retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention.”

    I’ll now leave it to you to give Prof. Stavins’ report the serious attention he says it deserves.


3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Serengeti Strategy (Part 2) (Part 1) […]

  2. […] have rebutted the arguments against Flannery here and […]

  3. […] never be full again. No, Andrew Bolt said Tim Flannery said that. full quote in context is here: http://indifferencegivesyouafright.w…er-fill-again/ Reply With […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: