BBC now spreading lies about Queensland drought

In the BBC article – Australia’s Queensland hit by record drought – they say “Queensland received little rain in February, which is normally the wettest month of the year, local officials say.”
Mad – here is BoM map showing percentage of average rain that fell in February. Make various BoM maps yourself.

Here is media release from Queensland Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry The Honourable John McVeigh Friday, 7th March, 2014 – “The largest area of Queensland ever drought declared”
Not a reliable guide to the rain that fell over Queensland last month. I commented a few days ago on this issue.

18 thoughts on “BBC now spreading lies about Queensland drought”

  1. Difficult to compare time series maps like the link given by Ian G because they plot records. Clearly as time progresses new records are made – and broken.

  2. Much better. But of course this was the Federation Drought which commenced in 1895. It’d be interesting to see earlier data than 1900.

  3. Just looking at Cloncurry McIllwraith St (7 years below the annual average of 482.5mm)
    Federation Drought
    1896 412.6
    1897 410.4
    1898 435.7
    1899 259.8
    1900 217.6
    1901 424.5
    1902 243.1
    Average 300mm (approx)

    Present drought (2 years below the annual average)
    2007 539.6
    2008 220.2
    2009 1054.6
    2010 701.6
    2011 748.4
    2012 677.4
    2013 165.8 (Cloncurry AP – as McIllwraith St data not complete)
    Average 600mm (approx)

    2014 183 (Jan + Feb)

  4. Ian, thanks for the links. If one looks at the Australian chart I think it is clear that from 1900 there has been a trend of increasing rainfall (contrary to the IPCC projects and especially the comments by that no-nothing Flannery.
    Looking at the sorted data the two lowest records are 1902 then 1905 which coincides with the federation drought which was severe in Qld. The highest rainfall was in 1974 which coincided with floods in Brisbane and other parts of Qld. The second highest was in 2011 which also had floods in Brisbane and other parts of Qld.
    In my area (SE Qld) I have data back to 1893 which was a very wet summer with floods in Brisbane (3.85m for the year). There was 1.8m of rain in February with over 1.0 m occurring over three days. 1898 was also very wet (total (4.0m and 1.19m in March). The drought started in 1900 and 1902 was the record lowest with 519mm. In 2011 we had 2.08m which in fact was beaten by 2010 (2.69m), 2012 (2.33m) & 2013 (2.37m)
    This year Jan+Feb we have had 115mm (which matches 1902) plus another 41mm this month to 10th (likely to surpass the 49mm of Mar 1902 as it rained today and raining now).

  5. Yes, there has been increasing rainfall Australia-wide since 1950 (except for SW Aust).
    If the 60-year cycle analysts are right, we could have declining rainfall over the next 60 years.
    So far weather similar to 1890-1893 (very wet as 2010-2012) , then very hot around 1895/96, then drought for 7 years. Hope they’re wrong.
    Looking better in Qld at the moment.

  6. Well actually Warwick. Your claims are very serious. The ABC report lists ALL the references from the ABC research, report and conclusions come from the BOM , CSIRO and trenberth.
    So actually the inference is that the BOM and CSIRO are spreading lies.
    Now why would they do that??

  7. Weathercycles
    ‘Queensland received little rain in February, which is normally the wettest month of the year, local officials say.”
    Just check the result for Feb rainfall in Qld. Looks above average to me.
    Taking in conjunction with my link above, only the SE corner missed out in Feb.
    Plus this from the climate summary for Qld.
    ‘The state wide average rainfall for February was 169.25 mm, 53.64 mm and 46.4% above the historical average of 115.61 mm and the highest rainfall since 2010.’

    Spreading lies? Now why would they do that?

  8. Weathercycles, if the ABC take information from Trenberth then no wonder they put up misinformation. Firstly, Trenberth lives in the US and has supposedly studied US and Global data which is not relevant to local Australian conditions, secondly Trenberth understanding about heat & mass transfer is very limited- his paper on the Global Energy budget is nonsense.
    Why no reference to Prof Stewart Franks, (the late) John Daly or even Warwick Hughes.

  9. Good to be online again – offline glitch caused by a long defunct email address recorded deep in the domain name records – which I was not able to reply to to.
    You must read what I said weathercycles – I never questioned the BoM – the problem started with the media statement by the Queensland Minister which was less than enlightening.
    The ABC summed that up without checking February rainfall numbers – and then it seems to me that the BBC paraphrased what the ABC said and ended up propagating untruths.

  10. Maybe the ABC article ..per this post…is a rehash from the AGW politically correct blog .”.The Conversation”.. Often read propaganda pieces like this there. Maybe worth while a look.
    Government sponsored.. and completely censored to exclude sceptical viewpoint

  11. By the way.. I should tell the owners of this blog that for 48 hrs my Telstra provider placed an intercept on anything related to” warwick hughes”
    I couldn’t even read any of warwicks stuff on wikopedia
    Seems ok now
    I believe ANYONE can contact Telstra and tellthem of malicious sites and they will do this. ..Intercept and prevent access.?

    Here is the offence code.. Note the code.InterceptSource..!

    Malicious pro-AGW antagonists perhaps. sKS. Drone strike perhaps..LOL

  12. Ah. Yes.. THe answer to the why? Is here!!

    Facts won’t beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will
    “Forget the Moncktonites, disregard the Boltists, and snub the Abbottsians. Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. Drown them not just with sensible conversations, but with useful actions. Flood the airwaves and apply tactics advertisers have successfully used for years…

  13. I have only a tiny understanding of how those sorts of issues work weathercycles – but thanks for recounting that experience with bigpond –
    Here is a true story. Back in late 2012 I commenced a new email account with a name like –
    I used it on a bulk email to a couple of dozen varied addresses –
    All the bigpond addresses came back as bounces.
    I dunno? but would I be paranoid thinking some org is scanning for politically incorrect text? If not how else could that be explained?
    One of my regular correspondents who is with bpond had problems for months – but persevered and it has been OK for a year now I think.

  14. Warwick, it may not be a deliberate action by Bigpond. I pay for a spam filter on my long time ( could be close to 20 years) email address at Bigpond. I have not looked at the filter for a couple of years but earlier I found it moved about 95% of actual spam and unwanted bulk emails. I think it blocks some spam and deletes other spam in the spam folder older than 1 month. Last time I looked there was no email in the spam folder that I may have wanted. On top of that on my computer I use a filter with my email program. There are four options I use a) block the sender server- this means emails will not download from Bigpond from an address such as yahoo b) block individual addresses – I block addresses in Russia, Nigeria etc c) send emails to the delete folder when words such as “sex” are in the subject line – this deletes when the program closes and d) send emails from stores etc to a junk folder which I empty regularly.
    The lack of blocking is (I believe) a fault with Mozzilla Thunderbird. I use MS Outlook express and MS Live Mail which can block. I have blocked gmail but allowed some individual gmail addresses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *