Grade 3 was the best 3 years of his life

It has been a while since I have reviewed a bit of Andrew Bolt's work. So I was not suprised when I saw this today:

Crisis! Rain returns to normal

Again as per 3 years ago Bolt has used the national average rainfall as 'proof' that things are all normal and fine. Of course I looked at it before and the results are the same. Higher rainfall in the north of Australia and lower in the remainder.

SO here is his argument broken down:

Rainfall has decreased substantially since 1950 on the east coast, and in
Victoria. This decline is less marked if measured from 1900.

“Less marked” is another way of saying rainfall levels are around what Australians
lived with for decades, long before “global warming” got blamed for anything and
everything. Check the graphs yourself on the second link above. Or here:

After which he inserts the national average rainfall graph which shows not a lot of movement. This is reflected in the more interesting or relevant anomoly graphs:

Yes I know there are a few graphs but what they show is that Victoria especially has suffered from less than average rainfall for an extended period of time even though we are meant to have experienced the wetter La Nina conditions. Victorians have lived with similar levels of rainfall in the past, that is true. We have never lived with such an extent of below average conditions for so long.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief Rob Freeman was asked recently if this was an indication of a climate change.

The section of the above article quoted by Bolt is in bold.

Speaking at a water summit in Melbourne yesterday, Mr Freeman took aim at doomsday climate predictions that have followed the driest three-year period on record for the Murray-Darling Basin.

''Some commentators say this is the new future, I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that's not helpful to take,'' he said.

Mr Freeman acknowledged that average inflows to the river system might be lower than in the past, but he was adamant they would be higher than those measured since 2006.

''We are always going to have droughts and floods, but to suggest the future is this, I think is misrepresenting the situation … while it's nice to have a burning platform on which to implement reforms, we've also got to be very honest,'' he said.

Of course when you take out the other parts of the quote it is aparent that he has been taken out of context by Bolt. Freeman has implied that things will get better but may never get back to average. Isn't that what climate change is?

So getting back to the original post by Bolt, in one article he has succesfully:

• mis-used the statistics;
• fail to understand any of the implications; and
• mis-quoted someone who has more knowledge than he.

Nice one Andrew, keep up the good work.