switkowski says climate change inevitable, page-51

billy. I'm getting sick of this. You want to keep knocking my argument, but its obvious that you've chosen not to go to the BOM site to check the data for yourself.
What is dodgy, are those arguments that portray weather events such as droughts as climate change, and that is exactly what has been done on this particular matter of rainfall in the south west.
The exactly same claim regarding reduced rainfall could have been made in 1902, 1915, 1940, 1970, 1980, such is the variation in the weather patterns and cycles.

This approach taken by the peddlers of man made
global warming reminds me of a fact regarding wool, that growers of fine wool are aware of. A grower will have a flock of sheep that are a nominal micron, though this will vary up and down according to the seasons. Obviously the micron of the fleeces of individual sheep will vary up and down around the nominal value of the whole flock. However, within each fleece there is also a variation of micron between the individual fibres that comprise the fleece that is greater than the variation between the fleeces of the entire flock. This does make sense to those familiar with woolgrowing.
It seems to me that some people are trying to use the variations within a single fleece to support their argument rather than focusing on the entire flock.
In both cases the sheep don't know any different, they will just swallow what they are being fed.