What exactly does that mean? The scientific fact is that no particular weather or climate event can linked to (or used as evidence against) global climate change. Funny how alarmists (like Romm) do this when it suits their purposes and deny it when it does not. It’s a form of intellectual dishonesty.

There are two views of this “1000-year” drought. One is that it’s not much bigger, as yet, than the Federation drought from 1895-1903 and that the rain will come again.

The second is that this is exactly the kind of climate pattern that is forecast by the climate change models, but it showed up perhaps a half-century early.

Many farmers hold to the former view, many to the latter. But there was a survey last year that showed (from memory) that 87% of the people think we are not doing enough about climate change and that it is a more important foreign policy issue than terrorism.

For a local view of the matter on our blog Larvatus Prodeo go here and here.

A pattern of rainfall deficiency has existed in the SW of Western Australia since the early 1970s and it seems to be spreading. We are told that the mid-latitude storms have moved south, largely missing the continent. It’s the mirror image of a drier southern Europe and floods in the north.

So you’d be brave to say that climate change and GW is not involved.

1000-yr droughts occur about every 1000 years, whether climate change is taking place or not. The brutal fact is that you can, or cannot, attribute this particular drought to climate change. The science of climate change makes predictions about statistical long-term climate only, not local and temporary events. You are perverting science to hawk your alarmist view, and it’s no better when you do it or when skeptics do the opposite.