Skip to content

2011 Brisbane Floods: Update 2013

This a full reproduction of an important article today in the Australian.

It is too important  to be behind a paywall.

Queensland flood report produced torrent of nonsense

THERE are 658 pages in the Queensland Flood Commission’s final report. Anzac Avenue is mentioned on only two of them.

The street is in the middle of Grantham, a town where 10 adults and two children died in the space of a few angry minutes on January 10, 2011.

If commissioner Catherine Holmes had lingered outside number 8, she might have asked why a flash flood resembling an inland tsunami struck here, of all places, a full 750m from Lockyer Creek, demolishing Brenda Ross’s double-brick home.

Morva Richardson, who ran the neighbouring pub with her husband, Lance, watched the tragedy from the balcony. She caught a glimpse of Ross’s 25-year-old son, Joshua, and family friend Chris Face peering out from the window.

“Next thing I know, the whole house seemed to pop up out of the water,” Morva Richardson told a coronial inquest.

“And then it exploded.”

Lance Richardson added: “The house went splat, I could not see anyone and I believed at the time they had no chance.”

The mystery, unexplained by the Holmes commission or any other inquiry, is why all those in Grantham were caught by a torrent, several metres high, on flat ground so far from the creek’s normal course.

Upstream at the foot of the Toowoomba Range, where the superstorm’s runoff cascaded down narrow gullies, there were other deaths.

In this type of terrain, the deaths are more easily explained.

No convincing official explanation has been offered, however, for why the majority of flood deaths on January 10, 2011, occurred well beyond the point at which the landscape broadens out into a wide flood plain.

Two blocks to the left of the Ross home, a fruit shop and a former bank built of besser block were damaged so badly they had to be demolished.

On the other side of the road, at the corner of Harris Street, the old baker’s building was washed from its foundations, coming to rest in the middle of the street.

Here is the curious thing. Further south on Harris Street, closer to the main creek, the damage was much lighter. Indeed, the nearer people were to the apparent conduit of the flood water, the greater their chances of survival.

An inquisitive commissioner might have raised an eyebrow at this point and asked why a torrent of water had strayed so far from the creek.

The cultural climate is not conducive to intellectual curiosity, however, particularly when it comes to the weather.

As Holmes said at the start of her report, “no recommendation made by the commission, even if implemented by the government, can control the forces of nature.”

The commission was dogged by the same primitive fatalism that blighted much of the reporting that oozed out of southeast Queensland in a post-inundation sludge.

There were some courageous exceptions, notably by the late Paul Lockyer and The Australian’s Hedley Thomas, but most journalists opted for sentimentalism rather than empiricism.

In any case, extreme weather events, as we are wont to call them, require little explanation since the science is settled, or so we are told.

Within two days, in an editorial illuminated by 1600km of separation, The Age declared: “A disturbing aspect of the floods is that they are consistent with (although not proof of) climate change predictions for northern Australia. Recent extreme weather events are part of climate change; arguments against taking action on greenhouse emissions on the grounds of cost look less persuasive, if not downright short-sighted.”

The Holmes commission wisely avoided the intemperance of The Age. Instead, it simply fudged its answers to the tricky questions.

It took no evidence from a farmer who collected his cow, alive, after it was swept several kilometres to the east. Nor did it examine the cars and household detritus washed along in the flood that showed the path the water had taken.

The commission did not examine buildings and note on which side they had been damaged. If it had, it might have seemed curious that the torrent had come from the west while the creek lay to the south.

The commission held community meetings to find out what notions might be bouncing around in the locals’ heads, but took no evidence from them, relying instead on the experts.

We already know, however, that the commission’s initial findings, bristling with supposed expertise, were deeply flawed.

It found originally that releases from the Wivenhoe Dam further downstream could not be blamed for the floods that struck Brisbane.

Fortunately, Thomas helped them out of their muddle with diligent reporting in The Australian demonstrating that had water management officials been on their game, and released water from Wivenhoe earlier and more steadily, much of the damage to Queensland’s capital would have been avoided.

The commission was recalled and the report rewritten. Arguably, it should have been shredded. The cursory attention paid to Grantham is further evidence this was a rush job.

Last Thursday, 2GB’s Alan Jones aired allegations that a levee more than 2m high and 300m long on the upstream edge of Grantham quarry broke, causing the Lockyer Creek to jump its banks in a wave that veered towards the main streets of Grantham.

The commission’s expert on hydrology used computer-modelling to demonstrate that the levee, 2km west of the town centre, was not to blame.

The computer-based conclusion is at odds with witness accounts and physical evidence.

Premier Campbell Newman must call a second commission of inquiry, and tell those who conduct it that he has no wish to see their report until they can show conclusively who is right.

Lockyer Valley residents deserve to know before the next big flood that the causes of the 2011 disaster have been established and, where possible, removed.

There can be no repeat of the unprecedented torrent of nonsense that surged out from every corner of the first inquiry.

Al Gore. Climate Fraud Supremo.

12007Make a scientific statement like, “northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.”.
Quote this whilst receiving your award, “Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”

2. In 2011Admit you are wrong & “move the goal post“-
“Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade.
The original prediction, made in 2007, gained Wieslaw Maslowski’s team a deal of criticism from some of their peers.
And one of the projections it comes out with is that the summer melt could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 – “plus or minus three years”.

3. October 4 2013Deny it ever happened -
“The clamor is being raised over Al Gore’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech quote supposedly saying that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013.- 1 What Gore did or didn’t say is beside the point …

Maslowski also did not say “by 2013″ in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009.
This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception.

The actual prediction from Maslowski’s 2009 publication is, “Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016.”

Al Gore. Climate fraud.

Andrew Revkin. Climate fraud. New York Times Journalist.

Andrew Revkin, climate change warrior, journalist, blogger @ dotearth via the New York Times opines on the 3rd June:

Rising Aggression Against Turtle Conservationists Preceded Costa Rica Slaying

Revkin has posted a reward for the killers of fellow environmental turtle warrior.

Several conservation groups are offering a reward in the murder of Jairo Mora Sandoval, a young guardian of sea turtle nests in Costa Rica. Click for large version.


So, I posted a comment asking if one death in the climate wars is worth a post, how about mass murder in the name of environmentalism with a link to this:

UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor

The UK agreed to give India £166m of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, theObserver has learned.

With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object.


Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony.

A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.

Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.

The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases …


The comment remains unpublished, yet breaks none of the guidelines.

Andrew Revkin is a climate fraud.

Climate fraud exposed! Met Office misleads government!

British Parliament, November, 2012 …

… The Parliamentary Question that started this was put by Lord Donoughue on 8 November 2012.
The Question is as follows:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government … whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 to be significant. [HL3050]”.

The question put by Lord Donohue to was whether global warming since 1850 was statistically significant.

Six times the question was put in the UK parliament and five times the answer was obfuscating spin about global warming without answering the question.

However on the sixth time an answer was forthcoming.

Global warming was not statistically significant.

This is an incredible breakthrough and the post by Doug at Bishop Hill is attached below in full (at link).
The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050).

The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable.

Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.

Plainly, then, the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim.

That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation.
Game over. Give back the trillion$. The judge might go easy on you.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Climate Frauds

Australia’s BoM releases it’s Annual Climate Summary for 2012, but FAILS to document in their “Official Historic Record” the ONE climate event proves the BoM/ UN-IPCC junk climate science models WRONG.


The Annual Climate Summary 2012 report is the Bureau of Meteorology’s official historical record of the previous year’s climate.

It provides a national overview of temperate and rainfall during the year, and documents significant weather and climate events.

** The SIGNIFICANT WEATHER/CLIMATE EVENT the BoM LEFT OUT of it’s 2012 Climate Summary:

27 April 2012


Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Senator Joe Ludwig said the expiry of EC declarations in Bundarra and Eurobodalla next Monday marked a major milestone for agriculture in Australia.

“The extended period of drought – which made things tough for many on the land – is finally over,” Minister Ludwig said.

Remember, in Australia, weather IS NOW climate:

A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.

Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.

Why would the BoM delete a climate event like a 12 year drought breaking climate event that it didn’t predict with it’s junk global warming science?

Because the Australian BoM is a Climate Fraudster.

The BoM are government funded climate tax frauds.

Jail these frauds.


Another UN-IPCC/BoM failure to predict drought breaking climate change:

May 6, 2013

New Zealand’s worst drought in 30 years is over

The drought has broken in New Zealand, marking an end to the driest period in 30 years.

Skeptical Science: Why it’s NOT science.


Weather is NOT climate

On 21 January 2013,  dana1981, or Dana Nuccitelli, of Skeptical Science, published an open letter to London Mayor Boris Johnson titled :

Weather is not Climate.”

At issue for dana1981 was the fact that the Mayor had commented that it was snowing in London in winter, and that the sun was to blame for any global warming.

Said dana1981, “Quite simply, weather is not climate.”

On March 04, 2013, the Climate Commission of Australia released a report titled, “The Angry Summer.”

The “Angry Summer” was “90 days, 123 records broken,” according to the Climate Commission, in association with the BoM and the CSIRO.

(What does 3,318 cold records set this week in U.S. say? Possibly a “Boiling Mad Winter”)

In particular, January 2013 was of concern for the BoM catastrophists, with a fiery armageddon for Planet Earth just a tipping point away.

At the very same time, in the same month, in London, it was ‘snowing in winter‘.

Weather is NOW climate

ALSO, on March 04, 2013, in support of, and as part of the propaganda, the Age newspaper, Australia, published this piece highlighting the Climate Commission’s latest report titled, “Climate change a key factor in extreme weather, experts say”:

A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.

Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.

The report, The Angry Summer, says behind the litany of broken heat and rainfall records this year, a clear pattern has now emerged.”

Yes. Weather is NOW Climate according to the Australian Climate Commission, courtesy of “The Angry Summer.”

The Question for dana1981:

* Will dana1981 write an apology to the Mayor of London quoting the Climate Commission


* Will dana1981 write an open letter to the Australian Climate Commission correcting their assertion that Weather is NOW Climate


* Will dana1981 do neither, allowing the junk science deceit & lies to continue?

☞    Any acknowledgments, open letters, apologies  from dana1981 will be posted when available.

Bonus Links:

The Truth About Skeptical Science

Skeptical Science – Rewriting History.  (screen shots of before & after alterations and censorship)

Sir David Attenborough-Humans are plague on Earth. Kill humans (but not me, I’m not part of the plague)

The ghost of Hitler is alive & well in this sanctimonious climate fraud.

Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

But, does this apply to him?

Does he have any children?

Or is it only other people this applies to?

Why, yes.

In particular, poor people of other races in “developing countries.”:

Sir David, who is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, has spoken out before about the “frightening explosion in human numbers” and the need for investment in sex education and other voluntary means of limiting population in developing countries.


Attenborough doesn’t seem to want to volunteer.

Not all are volunteers in Attenborough’s eugenics controlled weird world.

Fear not, oh great & fearless climate warrior, your environmental pogrom has already begun:

UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor

A working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.

The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases.

Do us all a favour and hurry up and die, Sir David Attenborough!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.