$3 a Copy Must Have Been Cheap Enough

Herald-Sun typist Andrew "Don't Call me Right Wing" Bolt today stated his book 'still not sorry' is now Sold Out.

I have a signed copy of my sold-out book Still Not Sorry that I shall give away to anyone who rings me on talback tomorrow and mentions this offer.

Huh? Last time I saw it was in Dirt Cheap Books at $3 a copy. Oh how I wish I had a photo of it on the stalls. It is not sold out, it is out of print and being hacked off for pulp.

Culture MY ASS

Today one of my favourite oxygen thiefs Andrew Bolt has a go at the North of Melbourne in his column:

Column - A culture that drove five to their deaths

As a resident of northern Melbourne I am ashamed of Bolt. What a fool. He simply lays blame at the tragic death of 5 teenagers as a cultural issue in the north of Melbourne.

He is quite quick to lay blame on the area, the youth, the parents, the 'culture' as he says it. As his last paragraph says:

No, it’s not our laws that need changing; it’s their culture. And until - if ever - that’s done, drunk kids will smash into trees.

their culture? WTF does that mean? and why is it any different to the culture in other areas? Gee nothing like that would happen in other areas of Melbourne like Williamstown or Bayswater or Hawthorn. Or anywhere in fact!

Take off your rose coloured glasses Bolt. Bogans are everywhere and Dickheads are everywhere, just look in the mirror and you will see one looking back at you

The Magic Dam Returns

Not sure if you noticed but September had above average rainfall. It is only the 3rd above average month of rainfall in Melbourne over the last 3 years. I hope we get a lot more.

But in my view more importantly we have not had above average annual rainfall in Melbourne for 12 years:



So what happens when there is a bit of rain around.....

Yes you guessed it. Bolt uses his tried (or is that tired?) argument regarding the construction of a dam to capture water in lieu of any other options. It is a simple argument he uses, if it rains build a dam to get that water, if it doesnt we should be building one in case it does.

Ted Baillieu (you know the state oppostion leader) is in on the news today and is trying to make some mileage out of the situation. Remember Ted? thats right he is the guy who suggested we should build a dam on the Marybinong River in 2006.

Now I have done many posts about Bolt's incorrect use of estimates on the Mitchell River and I have posted here and on other blogs about his wrong use of statistics and the out dated cost estimates. There is no need to go over old ground there again. What I wanted to comment on was the common use of the Magic Dam by those opposed to anything being done.

So what is the Magic Dam?

As stated earlier the magic dam is used mainly by those in oppositon to claim any current government policy is wrong. The weather climate in Victoria and especially the rainfall is becoming more variable and as a result the run off into rivers is not as consistent. So those in opposition have to rely on the Magic Dam to chase any flood flows wherever they may occur.

Where has the Magic Dam been proposed?

In today's column by Andrew Bolt he rattles off the following rivers:

• Yarra
  
• Upper Yarra
  
• Macalister
  
• Mitchell

as locations where the Magic Dam could be built.

Funny. So based on Bolt logic (please do not try this at home!) we should build a handful of new dams in any number of different locations depending on what the forecast says, a few pumpstations some pipes and then rely on rainfall that has been below average for the last 12 years.

Sounds to me like Andrew has been eating too much of the magic pudding to me.

Melbourne Architectural Review

SO I’ve just flown back from marvelling at the Coliseum in Rome, Schoenbrun Palace in Vienna and the Duomo in Milan with its hundreds of extravagant spires, each topped with a statue.

Yep this is seriously how Andrew Bolt returns from his holidays. I too have also seen those same buildings and marvelled at the size, scope and complexity within the structures. But, sadly I do not recall hundreds of spires at Milan's duomo.

Bolt is trying to comment on why Melbourne does not have Architectural wonders to draw tourists. Without dismissing the argument lets look at the statistics relating to tourist activities in Australia:



What Bolt forgets in his reasoning is that Australia's tourism drawcard does not rely on buildings (other than say the Sydney Opera House). It utilises Australia's natural assets and culture. Keri on her blog covers the discussion about culture and soul of a city.

The fact that Melbourne does not need to rely on buildings or gimmicks to attract tourists is a credit to the people and the place. This is something Bolt forgets. If tourists want to see historic buildings why would they bother flying from the UK to Australia when they can see the three buildings listed by travelling a fraction of the distance?

SO what of the three buildings Andrew listed as highlights of his European tour:

Duomo of Milan: Started 1386, finished 1965
Colosseum of Rome: Started 72AD, completed 80AD
Schoenbrun Palace in Vienna: Started 1696, completed c1918

Does Bolt seriously think the government should spend such massive amounts of funds, time and effort on a building as a tourist attraction? Seriously? Take what is considered Australia's most iconic building the Sydney Opera House.

Originally quoted to cost $7 million and finally costing $102 million as well as taking 10 years longer than expected. I wonder what Bolt would say about a Government spending so much more money and time on a tourist attraction?

Bolt cries:

What’s with us? Why can’t we build a single thing to impress? To delight? To announce that we dare dream?

I say we have any number of things to impress. I say we do dare to dream. I say our city is a delight otherwise why would we live, grow and love here?

UPDATE:

I see today that the Herald-Sun's own Mike Sheehan has had a go at Bolt ove rthe column. Sure he is mainly commenting relating to the MCG but he has some valid comments on the theme.

So he is an Architecture Critic as well?

And just when you thought it was safe to read the Herald-Sun:


For those who do not know Andrew Bolt has been on holidays for 5 weeks in Europe. So when he starts crapping on about Melbourne's icons expect references to "nothing like what they have in Europe" or "would only be found in the likes of Euro-Disney" or "If only our politicians and developers had the foresite of those in Europe".

Andrew likes commenting on things he has no idea or qualifications such as climate change or water resources and now architecture. I personally cannot wait to see how he goes. Expect a follow up report.

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.

Bolt at it Again

So previously I reported how Andrew forgot to mention he stuffed up when he incorrectly commented on how the Australian Federal Government was increasing the number of skilled immigrants when the looming GFC was going to put pressure on jobs.

Today the shifting argument goes to:

The Rudd Government tactily - and belatedly - admits it made a mistake last year:
Immigration Minister Chris Evans will reveal the Government is to cut its permanent skilled migration program this financial year by 14 per cent to protect Australian jobs… The Government will reduce the planned record intake of 133,500 workers in 2008-09 to 115,000.

And joy of joy the lunatics see it as an opportunity to vent:

Nark Latham replied to barmy Mon 16 Mar 09 (01:04pm)
Gee Barmy,if they stopped all muslims where would the Sydney gangs get their replacement soldiers from? Anyway they are only cutting back on skilled migrant numbers,no-hopers and welfare bludgers will still be welcomed in unabated numbers.Don’t forget there’s a Federal Election due about November next year and Labor needs all the new voters it can get.

Honestly Bolt needs a new moderator to kick these idiots asses. The racism aside what I always find interesting with Andrew is how he creates a story out of effectively nothing. Through self linking in loops he creates bulk to a story to show how long he has been on about it and how correct he can be. Well that's what he thinks anyway.

Bolt and Fact go head to head

Andrew only Last Friday claimed:

Why is the Rudd Government running the biggest immigration program in our history just as the economy crashes?”

Citing his own article and a link to an article on The Australian website as proof.

Yet let us look at what is reported today:

Slowing economy forces immigration cut
February 23, 2009 - 1:51PM

Australia will cut its annual immigration intake for the first time in eight years due to the slowing economy and weakening demand for labour, Immigration Minister Chris Evans said today.

Fact 1 – Bolt 0

UPDATE: Bolt states today

It’s taken nearly a year, but the Rudd Government didn’t want to look completely stupid by changing its mind any sooner on an immigration program that was stupid even to start with

and nice to see in the comments the following gem:

Yeah and plenty of these migrants are Indian students who have come here to take up phoney cooking or hairdressing courses to enable them to apply to migrate and bring the whole village with them.A conversation with an Indian woman in a lift went something like this."There are a lot of Indians in Australia now"."Yes,it’s our turn to invade you now.”
nigel of richmond Tue
24 Feb 09 (09:27am)

Nice to see Andrew's no racist comments policy has lasted about 2 minutes.

Bolt vs Bolt Part III - Each way bets

For those who did not know the guys from Blait Bolt watch have moved to Crikey.com. Below is my first tip off for them.

Posted at Crikey:

Global warming is a load of crap. Or not
February 19, 2009 – 10:00 am, by Scott Bridges

Andrew Bolt is a strident critic of the AGW theory (I don’t need to provide any links for that, do I?), so what is it with this post about the irony of global warming combating global warming?
Global warming may cut the very emissions we’re told cause global warming:

GLOBAL warming may be a worry to low-lying lands but Russia’s top weatherman
said that warmer temperatures would help to cut heating bills in one of the
world’s coldest countries. “The heating season will be reduced and this is a
positive factor for us as it will allow us to economise on fuel,” Alexander
Bedritsky, head of Russia’s state weather centre, said.

Which is it, Bolta? Warmening or no warmening?

Bolt vs Bolt Pt II - The return of the Knob

I was going to put together a post outlining the low levels Andrew Bolt would go to try and create some bullshit columns in the Herlad Sun.

But alas Scott at Grodscorp has done a much better job of it. His post is also on Crikey.com

The CV of Andrew Bolt

Today in Andrew Bolt's column he states:

I'm not an economist

Yep. Still that does not stop him going off on odd tangents trying to undermine Rudd and the labour government. But hey since he is stating what he isn't, what else should be added to the list?

I can think of a few including:

• water engineer
• transport planner
• journalist
• lawyer

got any others?

2008 Climate Summary

It is that time again when the BoM release their annual summary on the previous year in terms of temperature and rainfall.

Key findings:

• The mean annual temperature across Australia for 2008 was the 14th warmest on record (0.41°C above normal).


• A warm year was recorded in most regions, apart from Queensland, northeast New South Wales and the Kimberley (Western Australia).


• Above average annual rainfall was recorded across the Top End, eastern Queensland, northeast New South Wales and far west parts of Western Australia. Rainfall was average to below average in the remainder of the country.


• Low rainfall over the southern Murray Darling Basin during 2008 further exacerbated the long dry spell in this region.

other key quotes:

Australia has experienced a background warming of about 0.9°C over the last
Century.

Rainfall during 2008 was insufficient to break the long dry spell in the
southeast (including Tasmania). Across much of Victoria and adjacent areas of
South Australia and New South Wales rainfall has been below average for most of
the past 12 years.

Pity Andrew Bolt is on leave. As the data shows how wrong his 7 graphs were. In fact if you go to the BoM site and look at the historical long term data it is evident there are some concerning trends. For example, we are meant to be in a La Nina cycle that is meant to bring more rainfall to South East Australia, yet large portions of are well below average.

The Case Against the Mitchell Dam

For a long time, in fact too long to freely admit, I have been posting on sites such as Andrew Bolt's or TBBWP regarding the naive argument for building a dam on the Mitchell River in Gippsland. I thought it was time to post a wrap of my position including some facts and figures to counter those often made up by pundits.

The Catchment

The Mitchell River catchment is quite large covering an area of 4,870 square kilometres made up of mainly woodland and forest. The main rivers in the catchment include the Dargo and Wonangatta. Over the last few years the catchment has been subject to severe bushfires and drought conditions.

Recent Flows

The Mitchell catchment has been subject to well below average flows for an extended period of time. This is the same as the majority of catchments in Victoria. The average flow out of the total Mitchell catchment is 1,355,000ML per year.

As it can be seen even with close to average rainfall the flows from the catchment have been well below average. Looking at the data more closely:

As it can be seen there has been 4 months with above average flows in the last 24, of which, only one (June 2007) was above 125% of the average monthly flow. In the same corresponding timeframe there have been 4 months with flows below 5% of the average flow and 17 months with flows below half of the average.

The June 2007 flood was the result of 3 days of intense rainfall in the catchment. If that event is not included the flows within the system look dire.

Draining Out to Sea?

One claim about the Mitchell River is that it 'just drains out to sea'. This of course is false as the Mitchell River supplies about 30% of total inflow into the Gippsland Lakes System. We have all heard and read about the devastating effects removing the Murray River inflows from Coorong estuary systems in South Australia, so to think that it just 'flows out to sea' is naive.

Last summer the Gippsland Lakes were subject to blue-green algae blooms.

The History of Dam Proposals

There has long been proposals to construct a dam on the Mitchell River in Gippsland. The reason for this construction was not to supply water to Melbourne or to reduce downstream flooding, the main reason was to supply water for a proposed irrigation district on the flats near Sale.

In fact there was a dam constructed across the river in the 1880's but it was washed away and never replaced.

The Current Proposal

Pundits have talked about constructing a dam similar in size to the Thomson Dam.

It would have a storage of around 500 GL and a dam height of around 80m. The SKM report suggests that the annual environmental flow from the dam to supply the river downstream should be around 491 GL or about 37% of the annual flow. This does not take into account any needs of the Gippsland Lakes.

Since the Mitchell catchment supplies a large prtion of flows into the Gippsland Lakes it would be anticipated that the required environmental flows would be much larger than the 37% noted in the report. This increase would reduce the yield of the dam significantly when you consider the average yearly flows in the table above.

The estimated capital cost for the proposal in 2005 dollars $1.35billion (equates to $1.5b in 2008 dollars). In this cost there is an allowance of $480M for a 119km pipeline. This estimate is very doubtful as indicated by a 'very low' confidence level in the report and based on recent costs of $750M for the 70km long North - South Pipeline which has similar diameter pipes.

Based on a similar unit rate as the North - South pipeline the pipeworks would cost in the order of $1.3 Billion. It shold be noted that the pipeworks associated with the Mitchell proposal include a tunnel section through sensitive environments which would dramatically add to the cost.

By revising the 2005 estimate to 2008 dollars and using a current unit rate for the transfer system it would be expected that the Dam would cost in the order of $2.3 Billion. This still includes contingency on the dam construction costs.

Summary

The proposal to construct a dam on the Mitchell River in Gippsland is short sighted.

The capital costs of such a scheme would be closer to many other current alternative supply proposals than what is being reported.

The reliability of the supply is not as high as some would think with only an annual yield of 86GL/year at 95% currently and once the CSIRO climate change effects are taken into account the yield could drop to 69GL/year by 2050.

The environmental damage on the downstream river and Gippsland Lakes would be immense.

Bolt vs Bolt

Andy states here that global warming is not happening.

Andy states here that global warming is happening.

end post.

update

I posted this on the first linked thread:

So Andrew, Are you admitting that warming is occuring then?

and this is the reply:

Read very slowly what I’ve written many times before, so that this time, perhaps, you may at last comprehend.

The world seems to have warmed until a decade ago. It seems not clear at all that this was caused predominantly by humans, especially since the world then stopped warming. But that warming we had didn’t seem to hurt, and the evidence is that future warming may also not hurt.

Certainly, the evidence seems to be that trying to “stop” warming may hurt us
more than would simply coping with the consequences.

Other readers might now advise me whether I’m made this so clear that even Dam Buster has no excuse now for misunderstanding or misrepresenting.

Andrew you fool. Last week you attacked a local council for a spelling mistake. Yet you should have stated "I've" instead of "I'm" in your reply. But hey you are the journalist, sorry I mean the social commentator.

While I am at it the article you linked had a spelling mistake in the first sentence. Have you notified them Bolt?

Also the article itself contradicts Bolt by stating warming will continue and will result in more droughts even for Canada.

update 2

I replied to Andrew in his column asking the above questions and suprise, suprise:

Hey Andrew, /SNIP...you were banned ages ago. Go away. Bolt
Moderators.

Post Averted or is it?

Good old Andy, Some rain is forecast and the flood warning goes out on a number of rivers in Gippsland including some that have substantial storages:

Melbourne is on water restrictions, and the Bureau of Meteorology issues a
flood alert:
Flood Watch for East Gippsland Catchments (Mitchell, Tambo, Snowy, Cann and Genoa) Flood Watch for West and South Gippsland (Latrobe, Thomson, Macalister and Avon Catchments and South Gippsland Basin)

The Mitchell? Say, isn’t the river that flooded twice last year already, sending more water down to the sea in one lot than Melbourne uses in a year?

That’s the one:

But wait a minute. Did the river flood? Not according to the BoM:

Final Flood Warning for the Mitchell RiverFinal Flood Warning for the Dargo
River Issued at 10:00 AM on Monday the 24th of November 2008 by the Bureau of
Meteorology, Victorian Regional Office
Almost no rainfall has been recorded in the Mitchell River overnight, and
nosignificant rainfall is expected today. Some stream rises have occurred in
theMitchell River catchment, but no flooding is expected.
Mitchell River upstream of Glenaladale:The Mitchell River at Waterford
peaked at 2.65 metres [minor flood level 3.5metres] early Monday morning and is
continuing to fall.
Dargo River:The Dargo River at Lower Dargo Road peaked at 2.15 metres in
the last few hours, and is expected to fall during today.
Glenaladale:The Mitchell River at Glenaladale is expected remain below the
minor flood level[3.0 metres].
Bairnsdale:The Mitchell River at Rosehill is currently peaking around 4.5
meters. No flooding is expected in the Mitchell River at Bairnsdale

Watch this space. I am working on a post relating to the Mitchell Dam and how unreliable the River actually is for the supply of water based on facts.

Bolt vs BLAIR

In the normal run of the day in conservative blog world Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt agree on just about everything.

Not today. Who are we to believe?

Andrew who stated on Friday that:

Victorians clearly want more water, or such garden-killing restrictions wouldn’t be needed. Victoria clearly has that extra water - now flowing down rivers like the Mitchell. Rather than licence the Government to decide even whether watering your azaleas is “reasonable”, why not simply demand the Government build the new dam we clearly need?

Who is in charge here? The Government or its citizens?

Tim links to the Age’s Kenneth Davidson with the quote of:

Even without rain and the 150GL at the bottom of the dams which is sludge and can’t be used, there is still enough water to get Melbourne through to June 2010 at current consumption rates. With any inflow at all, this limit extends. Even if the inflow was reduced by 30% — the worst possible climate change scenario — Melbourne wouldn’t run out of water until 2015.

There isn’t a water problem — only the perception of a water problem …

To counter the argument by Tim Flannery from 2005 that:

Melbourne’s also vulnerable to water deficits. It’s a large city, it’s in an area of quite dramatic climate change, and therefore will be vulnerable as well.

So who is correct? Andrew Bolt who states we need to build a dam as soon as possible because we are running out of water? Or Tim Blair who thinks there is enough water and that Tim Flannery is a fool because he states that Melbourne could run out of water (this is presumed because Tim doesn’t really state much at all)?Of course who can forget the dishonest cherry picking of reports to make up an attack on Tim Flannery on the issue.It just shows how far these two buffoons will go to push their ideologies and hatred of certain people.

Bolt Gets Fact

Again Andrew uses very short term data to try and counter any predictions that Tim Flannery has made relating to water, specifically rainfall. This time he uses one week’s rainfall to counter an argument relating to long term shortfalls in rainfall. Bolt’s constant use of short history (how cold is it outside?) type arguments to counter long term trends will make any of his climate change arguments look insipid.

Here is Andrew’s in depth analysis:

Let’s revisit yet another prediction of Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery:
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. As temperatures around the world warmed by 2 to 7 per cent, Sydney could glimpse its future by looking at
the devastating impact that global warming had already had on Perth… ”I think
there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis,” Dr Flannery said.

The ABC reported yesterday:

Wet November:

Record rainfall in Perth has led to the November average being
reached just six days into the month; it’s the wettest start to November since
1969.

(No link. Thanks to reader David in Perth.)

And of course it is linked by Tim Blair.

Let’s look at some facts for a change. The BoM data indicates the following:

At Perth Airport the Average Annual Rainfall is 779.3mm

Out of the last 10 years the total annual rainfall has exceeded the average twice. With the highest being 820.0mm or 5% above average. The lowest being 479.6mm in 2006 which is in line with the annual climate summary for Perth:

Annual rainfall - below average: Perth's annual rainfall for 2007 was 703.0 mm on 117 days, compared with the long-term average of 856 mm on about 111 days. In 2006, Perth recorded its driest year on record with 466.8 mm on 97 days.
Perth's wettest month in 2007 was July with 179.4 mm on 19 days, 9.4 mm above the average of 170 mm. The wettest day in 2007 was 16 April with 40.4 mm.

And how much rainfall has Perth actually had during November?

Just 29.4mm.

Not exactly drought breaking. I am sure Tim Flannery is shaking in his waders.

BOTH CAN’T BE MORE WRONG

Cross posted from The Blair/Bolt Watch Project

Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt have again shown their complete ignorance of the facts with their latest feather-fisted attack on comments made by Tim Flannery.

Blair makes the suggestion (to which Bolt dutifully links) that a recent report in The Age contradicts what Flannery stated in 2005.

Here’s what Flannery said during a Lateline interview on June 10, 2005:

MAXINE McKEW: And South Australia and Victoria — what would you say? What’s the good news, what’s the bad news?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, the good news for South Australia is that we are at the end of the Murray River catchment, and our water can taste awful at times and can be rather poor quality, but we do have a large catchment behind it for a relatively small city. So water quality is going to be a significant issue for Adelaide. There is increasing recycling, of course, here as well, which is a good thing. Melbourne’s doing very well with recycling but Melbourne’s also vulnerable to water deficits. It’s a large city, it’s in an area of quite dramatic climate change, and therefore will be vulnerable as well.

MAXINE McKEW: Let’s cover the issue of pricing of water, Tim. Who’s ahead of the
game there?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, Jeff Kennett, for all the terrible things he did, perhaps, to many of us, actually did a lot of reforms that were quite important, and water was among them. It used to be in Melbourne that water would be on a rated basis with a little bit of a cost for your extra water. That’s changed now and you pay for the water you use and there’s a stepped tariff, and that’s a great — that sends a strong signal to the user that water is a precious commodity not to be wasted, and you’ll have to pay for water, and if you use a lot of water you pay a lot more, and that’s the sort of message we really need to get through. I really can’t emphasise that enough, that, you know, in this period of uncertainty, we have to be very careful of our water resources because a lot’s at stake.

Nothing new there. Melbourne is vulnerable to climate change, as highlighted in the CSIRO Climate Change Study. Refer to page 17, which states in part that:

the impact on water supply availability, both streamflow changes due to
climate change and population growth scenarios were used. The system yield
analysis showed that the streamflow reduction for the mid-range climate
change scenario in Table 2 would result in an 8% reduction in the average
annual volume able to be supplied in 2020 rising to 20% by 2050. This data
was then used to assess the shortfall and buffer between supply and demand.

Of course, over the past 10 years the actual streamflow into Melbourne’s storages has been well below even the 8 per cent reduction:

So what does The Age report state that contradicts the above? Here’s what Blair quoted:

Melbourne will have so much water in the next few decades it will no longer make
economic sense to install rainwater tanks or greywater systems in new homes, a
State Government-commissioned report has found.

However, if he’d quoted a little more of the story, we would have seen the following:

MELBOURNE will have so much water in the next few decades it will no longer make economic sense to install rainwater tanks or greywater systems in new homes, a State Government-commissioned report has found.

The Government’s big water projects, including the controversial desalination plant and north-south pipeline, will eliminate the need for ambitious water saving targets for new homes, apartments and renovated houses, according to the report by the Institute of Sustainable Futures, based at the University of Technology, Sydney.

Despite Melbourne Water chairwoman Cheryl Batagol last week expressing concern that the Government’s water plan “may not be enough”, the report said the $4.9 billion projects will yield an extra 240 billion litres “resulting in a likely surplus … until well beyond 2050″.

Do Blair and Bolt even read the articles to which they link? Seems not, and it appears as though they’ve “beclowned” themselves for the umpteenth time.

Flannery was right: Melbourne does have a shortage of water. It will continue to have a shortage of water supply due to the combination of increased population and industry, and less reliable rainfall. The construction of the desalination plant and the North-South pipeline will alleviate the current and future water deficit.

Yet again, Blair and Bolt have demonstrated their profound dishonesty by cherry-picking quotes to create a story.