Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In part 4 of this series, I take a look at the Waxman Markey claims about the Emerald Isle, Impact Zone Ireland. My previous analyses of the same site were Waxman Malarkey: Impact Zone US Northeast, Australia, and Alaska.
Having run short of other scares, the W/M folks want to convince us that Ireland is facing a simultaneous drought and flood … it’s the alarmist’s dream, the universal disaster:
Figure 1. Our future according to Waxman-Markey
How does that work?
Here’s their claim:
THE MISTY ISLAND DRIES OUT
Irish citizens have access to 5 times as much fresh water as the average European. High measures of annual rainfall and low evaporation rates have left a legacy of short coastal streams on peat covered hills and a maze of bogs and lakes along flood-prone inland rivers. However, this legacy may be broken as climate change could yield too much water in some places at some times and too little of it in other places at the same time. Scientists predict that by 2050 winter rainfall will increase by 12 percent and summer rainfall will decline by the same percentage.
…
Most of the current primary crops in Ireland are already showing evidence of decline. The potato in particular is highly dependant on adequate water supply so it may cease being a commercially viable crop. It is difficult to comprehend that the potato, a part of the landscape so intertwined in Ireland’s culture and history, may not feature strongly in its future.
With hotter, drier summers reducing the summer water supply in inland areas, water accessibility, which currently isn’t necessary for the majority of Irish farming, may necessitate the development of new irrigation systems, which will compete with industrial and residential water demands.
Let me take these claims one at a time. First:
Irish citizens have access to 5 times as much fresh water as the average European.
The citation to this is a site called “Irish Climate”. I do not find any support for the “5 times as much fresh water” claim there … or anywhere. But then “Irish Climate” is a strange site, chock full of unverified claims and alarmist scenarios. In addition, their advertising scheme is to drop ads for things like “Online Slots” into the text at random. I was particularly taken with this one:
So yeah, too bad that things could maybe kinda change in Ireland…it’s not like in Africa, where they had it sooooo good until global warming and then BAM! Online Slots! Suddenly people were poor and starving and sick and illiterate and slaving under corrupt and brutal gangs posing as governments and religions. All since, like, 2006 or so, when the media and corporate and political world started using hip words like ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ to prove that Things Were Being Done.
I never knew online slot machines could cause so much damage. (I disabled the link in that quotation from the site, to prevent further child deaths). But I digress …
I find no scientific support for the “5 times” claim. Actually, I was surprised when I looked into the famous Irish rain to find that the island only gets about about 1.1 metres (46″) of rain per year. So are they saying that Europeans are only getting a fifth of that (230 mm, or 9″) of rain per year? No way. So what do they mean? The world wonders.
In any case, my investigation of the Irish rain leads me to their second claim, that:
However, this legacy may be broken as climate change could yield too much water in some places at some times and too little of it in other places at the same time. Scientists predict that by 2050 winter rainfall will increase by 12 percent and summer rainfall will decline by the same percentage.
“Scientists predict”? I doubt it. Ireland is a postage stamp sized country, there’s no climate model in the world that claims accuracy at that small a scale. And climate models do very poorly at predicting rainfall in any case. So let’s look at some data. Figure 2 shows two different rainfall datasets, once again from the marvelous KNMI site.
Figure 2. Historical Irish rainfall for summer (March-August) and winter (September-February) for the area bounded by 50°-55°N, 5°-10°W.
As you can see, there is no trend in Irish rainfall, either in the summer or the winter. So once again their claims are nothing but alarmists crying wolf.
Next, let’s look at their claim that:
Most of the current primary crops in Ireland are already showing evidence of decline. The potato in particular is highly dependant on adequate water supply so it may cease being a commercially viable crop. It is difficult to comprehend that the potato, a part of the landscape so intertwined in Ireland’s culture and history, may not feature strongly in its future.
The site for investigating claims like this one is marvelous UN FAOSTAT site. It contains every agricultural statistic imaginable. It shows that 90% of Ireland’s crop production (by tonnage) is in five crops – barley, oats, wheat, potatoes, and sugar beets. Here is the production of those crops since 1961, the start of the FAO database:
Figure 3. Production of the five main Irish crops. The sugar beet data ends in 2005, with the other datasets going to 2008.
So is potato production dropping as they claim? Most definitely … but not because of any change in the rainfall. It has been dropping since the start of the record. Why? Because farmers plant what they can make the most money on for the least effort and risk. Farmers aren’t fools.
Note also that the total production of the five main crops has not changed in half a century. This shows that, rather than Irish production decreasing because of any change in climate, all that is happening is the farmers are shifting from one crop to another.
There is another way to see if the changes in food production are climate related. This is to look at the yields of the crops. “Yield” is the amount of the foodstuff which is produced per hectare. Figure 4 shows the change in yields over a half century:
Figure 4. Crop yields for the main Irish crops
If changes in the climate were affecting the crops, we would see a reduction in the yields. Instead of seeing that, we see that the yield of every one of the crops has been increasing over the period. So whatever has been convincing the Irish farmers to change their mix of crops, it hasn’t been the climate.
Finally, further down on the page, the Waxman Markey site makes the following claim:
The Irish landscape faces many pressures from global warming that will result in visual changes to vegetation and land use. Losses of habitat vital to many species of flora and fauna and the stability of the landscape itself will change due to greater weather extremes. Arable land in particular regions of the country will continue to grow fields of wheat, barley, and corn as climate changes. In other regions, however, with the emergence of warmer and dryer summers, brown fields of grass during the summer months will become much more common.
The curlew, a beloved Irish bird known for its distinct cry, is endangered by climate change.
But even a rabid AGW carbon control site like the Conservation Volunteers of Northern Ireland doesn’t believe that. They say (emphasis mine):
Threats to the Curlew
There has been a rapid decline in the population of breeding curlew in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years. The most recent survey in 1999 suggested that breeding pairs have declined by 58% since 1988. This rapid decline has been reflected in other parts of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The decline of the curlew is linked to the loss of their wetland habitat mainly through more intense agricultural practices, drainage of wetland areas and overgrazing by livestock. It is thought that curlews are now more vulnerable to predation and this is having a further impact on their population. As the birds nest on the ground, they are vulnerable to recent increases in predators such as foxes and crows. The poor survival rate of young birds is known to be a key factor in the decline of curlew.
In Northern Ireland, the curlew is a legitimate quarry species during the open season, although it is thought that the numbers shot are very small. It is fully protected elsewhere in the UK.
Summary: The claimed future changes in Irish rainfall have no scientific validity. The changes in potato production are unconnected to the climate. Agricultural production is not declining. The drop in numbers of the curlew is due to drainage of wetlands. And once again, the Waxman site contains nothing but malarkey.
Maybe the Irish should consult with the Egyptians who produce fabulous potatoes in a land of VERY low rainfall.
http://www.tpegypt.gov.eg/Arabic/CompCat.ashx?id=3598
Myron Mesecke says:
“Too bad that the news media no longer has its reporters conduct actual research anymore. Imagine what an impact it would make if the mainstream media would investigate some of these wild alarmist claims instead of just quoting the news releases they are given. Thanks for doing a great job of fact checking.”
….How journalists make it all up
“You can’t make this stuff up.”
Well, somebody did.
I can’t believe the level of idiocy these days in the journalism profession. Have they not noticed that this year’s Arctic ice is greater than last year’s; or that last year’s is greater than the year before?
What total tools. I will tell you how this stuff gets reported like this. I will share a secret. The reporter gets a “press package” with the story already written. It’s done by a professional PR agency, often an agency that specializes on “progressive” causes like Fenton Communications in the US.
They might be given a list of individuals who would be available for interview or if there is an event or “protest”, they are given a press liaison contact. If they attend the event and make contact with the liaison, they will be given a “press packet” there that gives the “correct” background information. They will be briefed and explained to them what the importance of various things are and guided to the best locations for photographs and possibly be directed to key individuals for comments.
It’s the difference between a photograph and a painting. “Journalist” means you write things down. It’s different than being a reporter and digging for facts. The truth is many “journalists” are lazy and more interested in hanging out with the “cool” people so they can count themselves among them.
In laying out what “scientists will warn of” next week, he had to have been given access to the press packet. He is likely re-stating what was dropped on his desk.
Rupert Murdoch (and the late Kerry Packer) are the architects of their own demise. Between them they raided a fair proportion of the news media in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States (in alphabetical order). They employed a manufacturing model to centralize the “production” of the news in “hubs”, thus getting rid of a large number of specialized journalists, and practically all journalists working at the grassroots level for small-town newspapers.
There is no time for investigative journalism any more – journalists now rely on Press Releases, delivered by “spokespersons” to give them “leads” for their news items. The print media is now is all about advertising revenue – hence the increase in sensationalism and the decrease in impartial analysis. This trend has since been extended to New Scientist, Scientific American, National Geographic, et al.
The blogosphere (and private sector intelligence organizations) are now following the laws of biology, by moving into an environmental niche that has been vacated by its previous occupants.
If you want an in-depth analysis, see “Flat Earth News”, by Nick Davis, published by Vintage Books, and endorsed by the Financial Times.
Remember this…
The mass media is NOT your friend.
They exist for the purpose of selling you fear, keeping you in a Just-Over-Broke, keeping you paying your 78% taxes and feeding the machine.
The constant barrage of world-wide negativity, mass mediocrity and the paralysing fear of murder, government corruption, the financial crisis and increasing taxes is THE Number 1 Conspiracy of the modern world: A conspiracy to pollute your mind, break your spirit and leave you with an overwhelming feeling that you are small, insignificant, weak, and helpless
I almost never watch the news. Someone will tell me the important stuff: it is all anyone ever talks about: THE NEWS.
However, whilst on a train to London, I picked up a paper that was left on the seat: it was a shopping list of catastrophes and mind-numbing trauma. I know that *the news* is “normal” to “normal” people. However, most normal people accomplish fairly little in their lifetime. Those of us who are going somewhere in life have better things to do than watch the relentless droning of crimes and disasters we have no power to solve.
Right now, the world is FULL of negativity.
You, as a free-thinking individual, MUST resist this – passionately and proactively. Because if you don’t it will kill your soul, kill your ambition, kill your dreams and everything you really live for, and love.
Not only must you protect yourself from the media world of depression, you need to combat it with your family and your loved ones. You need to tell them what’s GOOD. You need to smile. You need to greet everyone you meet with encouragement. Your vendors, the Real Estate Agents, your friends & family.
You need to talk about what’s really HAPPENING.
In Your world. In a Good world. In a Real World – YOUR REAL WORLD.
You need to celebrate tiny little victories EVERY SINGLE DAY.
And… when you have a major victory in your life, share it with people who will celebrate it with you.
In the UK there is a serious crime known as “Misleading Parliament”. Given that Greenpeace, Fiends of the Earth, the Civil Service, Minsiters and various “scientists” have been “Misleading Parliament” for several decades now, I wonder when we will see them charged with this offence – regarded as being as serious as committing Treason?
Re: Walter Schneider Request.
Harvesting fears as frost lingers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8446707.stm
Consumers and farmers are counting the cost of the harsh weather which has brought vegetable harvesting to a halt and resulted in sharp price increases for some produce.
Northern Ireland potato growers, who have still 15% of their crop in the ground, are facing some of the biggest losses because of frost damage.
Angus Wilson of one the main potato packing companies, said that while the spud harvest in Britain has been safely gathered in, local growers experienced difficult planting and growing conditions which has meant harvesting has been late.
“If potatoes are in contact with frost, even for a day or two, they just go into a jelly and they become absolutely inedible,” said Mr Wilson.
Fields are frozen solid to a depth of more than six inches and in many cases the entire crop may be affected by frost damage.
For every acre of spuds lost to the frost, growers will lose around £2,000………..
The harvest was set late as a result of excessive rain, an almost annual occurence and usually does not affect the potato crop until you have extreme freezing conditions that penetrate the soil like the last winter. As of June 1st these same farmers are now playing an absolute fortune in carbon taxes for a warming planet. The irony about carbon taxes is the colder the weather the higher the tax take. Food costs are rocketing because of the cold across Europe this year yet we are hit with carbon taxes for global warming that is non existant. This winter will be much the same yet the Global Warming Prophets told us we would never see snow across UK & Ireland ever again.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 1, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Paul Birch says:
July 1, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“Irish citizens have access to 5 times as much fresh water as the average European.”
(Irish rainfall/Irish population density)/(average European rainfall/average European population density)
Sounds about right. Ireland is somewhat more rainy than average, and considerably more sparsely populated.
Are you taking lessons from Waxman? Put some numbers on it. I get:
(1161 mm/63 people/km2) / (751 mm/112 people/km2) = 2.7, a long way from five.
How come I have to do the hard lifting? If you have a good idea, do your homework, look up the numbers, come up with the answer, cite your sources. Otherwise, it’s just handwaving.
______________________________________________________________________
Come off it! You made the mistake in your original post (forgetting to include the pop density). I pointed out your error and said – truthfully – that the factor of five seemed “about right”. The onus on you if you want a more accurate calculation. Preferably not one relying upon Wikipedia. From my Times Atlas of the World (a real book) the pop density for Ireland is 46/km2 (or from the Guinness World Data Book (which ought to be “good for you” re Ireland!), 50/km2). It looks to me as if the wikis eurostat pop estimate includes Northern Ireland. The figure you picked out for “Europe” is for the EU only. Precisely what areas should be chosen is debatable – even arbitrary – but a factor ~5 is certainly supportable. If you want to be pedantic, perhaps we should also include the ratio of the runoff fractions, which dictate how much fresh water is accessible.
“…It is difficult to comprehend that the potato, a part of the landscape so intertwined in Ireland’s culture and history, may not feature strongly in its future….”.
What utter tosh — it was important to the natives in the last few centuries because the invaders confiscated just about everything else — you might as well say nettles and seaweed are “intertwined in Ireland’s cultural history”.
I’ve dragged out a book I bought about 30 years ago The Irish Landscape, Frank Mitchell 1976 (Trinity College Dublin) which is a brief history of the Irish geology and climate etc.
In the chapter covering AD 300 – 1900 he quotes Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales c.1146 – c.1223) who travelled to Ireland in 1185 (at the height of the MWP) and wrote an account for Henry II (as his chaplain):
“…Ireland is the most temperate of all countries…. snow is seldom and lasts only for a short time….there is a plentiful supply of rain, such an ever-present overhanging of clouds and fog, that summer scarcely gives three consecutive days of really fine weather…”.
“…The land is fruitful and rich in its fertile soil and plentiful harvests….crops abound in its fields, flocks on the mountains, wild animals in the woods it is rich in honey and milk…exports cow-hides, sheep-skins and furs…much wine is imported …”.
Not bad.
“…. only the granaries are without their wealth….the crops give great promise in the blade, even more in the straw, but less in the ear…. for here the grains of wheat are shrivelled and small and can scarcely be separated from the chaff….because of the unceasing rain [Lughnasadh wheat harvest day is 1st August]…”.
Pre-Mann et al. Mitchell comments: “…what Giraldus has to say about the wheat failing to ripen is of particular interest, because a temperature curve shows he was writing at a time when mean annual temperature in England — and presumably in Ireland also — was rising to its thirteenth-century peak [here he reproduces H. H. Lamb’s 1000 yr. temperature reconstruction]….”.
Mitchell observes that some say that there is no such thing as climate in Ireland, but only an irregular sequence of fronts bringing wind and rain — that maritime influences predominate.
I was in the west of Ireland last week, and visited Inishere, one of the Aran islands in Galway Bay. They had had no rain for weeks. Things were getting worrying – Reservoirs low, water rationing, and the prospect of shipping water in. Whoever wrote the initial article must have been there then! One farmer had to sell cattle as he couldn’t water all his stock. One of the problems with this part of Ireland is the fact that the underlying rocks are the limestones of the Burren, and now is the height of the tourist season (perhaps they should bring their own water). However rain is now arriving, so I hope this helps them even if it does mess up the theories noted above.
We have indeed got “access” to plenty of fresh water as long as we’re prepared to take a bucket and walk to the nearest well, but right now there are water shortages and hosepipe bans in some parts of the country (see http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0624/1224273187074.html), and only the predicted arrival of rain next week looks likely to stave off a similar ban and rationing where I live, in north Dublin, and maybe not even then.
The original quote seems to be intended to convey the impression that the Irish (uniquely in Europe) benefit from a glorious abundance of fresh water available at the turn of a tap, which is now threatened by global warming. If so, neither inference would be correct. We have more than enough water for any conceivable need, and that is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future, but getting it from where it falls to where it’s required is so badly served by inadequate and neglected infrastructure that just a few weeks of drier than average weather is enough to result in the farcical situation we have right now.
And it’s not just dry weather either – last winter was so cold that water mains froze and burst, causing significant disruption to supplies, to which our sanctimonious Green Minister for the Environment responded by lecturing us about our ‘wasteful’ use of water. In Ireland, no less.
You would think that one of the few benefits to living in a country as wet as Ireland would be plentiful water, but it ain’t necessarily so.
I lived in Ireland for many years, many years ago, south east, Waterford, and it was almost continually wet during autumn/winter. A fine drizzle for 3 months, not a rain, nothing I’ve experienced anywhere else, not quite a mist and not quite a drizzle. Everyday having to “strip down” and hang clothes in front of an open fire (No central heating back then) to dry them all out for the next day.
Plenty of railfall, few catchments for drinking (During my time that is).
Derryman and Dinjo are right.
stevengoddard: Supply of Guinness is abundant everywhere, but Guinness does not travel well so it tastes a lot better in Dublin.
Jackie, thanks for the link to the BBC article on the potato-harvesting problems: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8446707.stm
The BBC article is dated Thursday, 7 January 2010. I suppose it is not normal to leave Irish potatoes in the ground until then.
Going by my experiences and that of other potato growers around here, adaptation is an effective means for coping with inclement growing or harvesting conditions. The BBC is not necessarily the best authority for suggesting improved harvesting methods over the one they chose to illustrate in their article: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47059000/jpg/_47059714_ff4web.jpg
A variety of equipment is being used here and other potato-growing areas to overcome the drawbacks posed by tools that date back to the time before industrialization: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Potato+Harvester&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Equipment like that ensures that virtually always the potato-harvesting operations will be completed in September. Mind you, even though that speeds up the harvest enormously in comparison to the method illustrated by the BBC, potato harvesting machines will not work well or cannot be used at all if excessive rains cause muddy fields.
Muddy fields that put a stop to all harvesting around here are rare. The last time that happened was in 1973.
It seems that the BBC article did clear up my suspicion of what the primary factor was that caused the harvesting delays in Ireland: “local growers experienced difficult planting and growing conditions which has meant harvesting has been late.” Although the BBC article did not state the details of that, it is probably be safe to assume that excessive rain and lack of sufficient dry weather were likely causes, not broken digging forks or winter cold.
Sorry about that. In the last paragraph of my previous comment it should have been “it is probably safe to assume” instead of “it is probably be safe to assume”
Here is a full report http://www.c4i.ie/docs/IrelandinaWarmerWorld.pdf
The only problem in Ireland with water supply is all the old leaky pipes, its cheaper to let them leak than replace them because water is cheap.
When there is a wet summer like the last few we are told yes but its the wrong sort of rain because it comes in downpours.
There was flooding in Ireland last November and much of the problems were that new developments were built in the last few years in areas that flood every few decades but there were let build on the sites because they had not flooded in a few decades
Major Climate Impact in Ireland revealed.
Today, I finally used up the bottle of Sun Tan lotion I bought in 2006. Apart from this June, we have had no sun in Ireland for 4 years.
40 Shades
Excellent post.
A quibble: You say “If changes in the climate were affecting the crops, we would see a reduction in the yields. ”
I think this leaves out the possibility that a small rise in temps (longer growing season) and/or CO2 may be benefitting the crops (along with improved farming methods).
Hence the motto “Happiness is a warm planet!”
KW
I’ve been to Ireland several times. It’s wet even when it’s dry. The good side is that it has some of the most beautiful scenery on Earth (especailly on the West coast) and if you steer clear of the bigots, the people are pretty good too.
Paul Birch says:
July 2, 2010 at 3:32 am
I made the mistake of “forgetting to include the pop density”? The original quote says nothing about population density, or per capita rainfall. It said that “Irish citizens” as a whole have access to more water than the “average European”. You have proposed that they are talking about per capita rainfall amounts, which is possible. However, there is no evidence that that is the correct interpretation, it may be something entirely different. So I took a look at your claim to see if that might be the right interpretation, but I didn’t “forget” anything.
Next, if you object to using the EU as the “average European”, what would you use instead?
Next, yes, the rainfall figures include Northern Ireland. Ireland (the country) actually has less rainfall than Ireland (the island) has.
Next, you are using outdated references. The 2010 CIA World Factbook gives the population density of Ireland of 60.5 people per square km. And yes, that excludes Northern Ireland.
Finally, even if we use your figures, we don’t get an answer of 5 times. So my conclusion is that either they are using off the wall numbers, or they are not talking about rainfall per person but about some other calculation.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 2, 2010 at 1:48 pm
“I made the mistake of “forgetting to include the pop density”? The original quote says nothing about population density, or per capita rainfall. It said that “Irish citizens” as a whole have access to more water than the “average European”. You have proposed that they are talking about per capita rainfall amounts, which is possible. ”
You made the clearly false assumption that this was talking about raw rainfall rates and tried to rubbish the article based on this false assumption. I pointed out that if you go by rainfall per capita, which is what makes sense in the context, the factor of five is reasonable (and even more reasonable if you include runoff fractions).
“Next, if you object to using the EU as the “average European”, what would you use instead?”
I don’t “object” to it, if that’s the comparison you want. It’s not the comparison stated, though. The obvious answer, based on the standard meaning of the English words, would be to average over the whole of Europe. I have no idea what particular figures were actually used to get the factor of five, and don’t much care, since it was very obviously only intended as a rough indication of how more blessed with water Ireland is.
“Next, yes, the rainfall figures include Northern Ireland. Ireland (the country) actually has less rainfall than Ireland (the island) has.”
Then they shouldn’t. Northern Ireland is in the slightly lower rainfall part of the island, east of the 1m/yr isohyote.
“Next, you are using outdated references. ”
Maybe, but I don’t believe they are so outdated that the Irish population has increased 37%. Ah, no, I can see what’s happened. The figures you’ve been quoting are for the resident population, not the 3.7m Irish population (that is, the Irish citizens the article mentions). There are currently many non-Irish EU citizens living there.
I am frankly amazed that you’re making such an absurd fuss, instead of simply thanking me for clarifying the intended meaning of “5 times as much fresh water”, which is what I expected. I certainly did not expect you to take it as an attack, nor for you to attack me in return.
Paul Birch says:
July 2, 2010 at 4:02 pm
We have no evidence that is what they meant. You have not been able to jimmy the figures to get to five. Their meaning is still unknown. As such, your crowing is premature.
Perhaps I’m missing something. What is in the “whole of Europe” that’s not in the EU? Yeah, I know that Monaco is not in the EU, but how will the EU figures be significantly different from whatever you’re talking about?
And yes, I understand that you “have no idea what particular figures were actually used to get the factor of five, and don’t much care …”. But I’d like to know what it is they are talking about, and we still don’t know. It may not be rainfall per capita. It may be domestic water usage per capita. It may be reservoir capacity per capita. It may be river flow per capita. And since the numbers are the only way we have to figure out what they are talking about, why are they suddenly unimportant?
Right. Using that logic (divide total rainfall by Irish citizens only) would mean that the other ten million people living there have no access to fresh water at all. I’m sure that’s what they meant … not.
You waved your hands and said “this is what they mean” without actually looking at the numbers. You didn’t bother with doing the hard yards, you’re only into it for the big picture. I did the hard yards and ran the numbers, and didn’t get anything near five. You immediately accused me of forgetting things and doing it all wrong. But your numbers don’t get to five either.
But hey, thanks, Paul … I really appreciate your clarifying the meaning. Except for the small detail that the numbers don’t support your theory, and so we still have no clarity on what they actually meant, you’ve been a big help, many thanks.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm
“We have no evidence that is what they meant. You have not been able to jimmy the figures to get to five. Their meaning is still unknown. ”
I repeat, you made the clearly false claim (that they were referring to the raw rainfall rates). It is plain to anyone with common sense that that is not what they meant. Precisely how they got the figure five is not clear, and I never claimed it was. It is, however, obvious that some notion like rainfall or river flow per capita is implied. It is also obvious that this was never intended as a hard scientific statement or accurate statistic, but as an order of magnitude figure, a general indication of how comparatively water-rich the Irish people are. For that purpose the figure five is reasonable. By careful choice of comparison figures I could probably get it above ten, if I thought it worth the effort, which I don’t. You seem so determined to attack these people that you insist upon reading far too much into general remarks. This detracts from what might otherwise have been a valid critique.
“What is in the “whole of Europe” that’s not in the EU?”
Most of Europe, for a start! Apart from countries like Switzerland and Norway, there’s a huge area of Central and Eastern Europe outside the EU. And some of the EU (such as overseas departments of France, or Cyprus) isn’t in Europe at all! Though the way we often talk about “Europe”, it is probable that the area they had in mind was actually more like “Western Europe”, which would exclude EU countries like Poland.
Paul Birch says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:06 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm
It is plain to anyone with common sense that I did not claim they were referring to the raw rainfall rates. I specifically said that they were not referring to that, and that I did not know what they were referring to. Here’s my quote:
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not make a “clearly false claim”, you had a clearly false fantasy. I made no claim at all, I said that I did not know what they meant.
Paul Birch says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:06 am
“Most of Europe” is not in the EU? Hardly. Here’s a map:
Looks to me like everything’s in the EU but Norway, Switzerland, and the old Yugoslavia.