Guest post by Dr. David Deming
The science of global warming is allegedly “settled.” The American Physical Society has declared that “global warming is occurring” and that the “evidence is incontrovertible.” According to environmentalists and advocacy organizations, unchecked global warming will lead to an environmental disaster of unprecedented proportions. Polar icecaps will melt and rising seas will inundate coastal cities. Species will become extinct. Green pastures and sylvan glades will be transformed into deserts of scorched and desiccated sand.
But the science of global warming is not settled. And there is scarcely any unambiguous scientific evidence that significant future harm will occur to either human beings or the natural environment. People have been systematically deceived by a coalition of environmentalists, governments and institutions that feed off a stream of funding for climate research. This essay documents in specific detail one example of how this deception has been promulgated.
On November 28, 2011, Purdue University issued a press release titled “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change.” Subsequently, the material in the press release was recycled by various media outlets under headlines such as “Walnuts are super-sensitive to climate,” and “walnut industry may crack under climate pressure.” One writer asserted that the genus Juglans could be “pushed to the verge of extinction within a few decades,” explaining “this is the conclusion of a recent study issued by Purdue University.” Walnut trees were vulnerable because “they can’t handle low or high temperatures.”
By now, we’re all used to seeing everything imaginable either linked to, or blamed upon, global warming. The list is long and ludicrous. But I was taken aback by the claim that walnut trees were somehow especially sensitive to climate change. From personal experience, I knew walnut trees to be hardy, not fragile.
I have about half a dozen Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) trees on my property in central Oklahoma (see photo).
Oklahoma has a harsh climate. Record temperature extremes range from a low of -31 degrees F to a high of 120 degrees F. Droughts, heat waves, ice storms, hail, and high winds are common.
According to the Oklahoma State University agricultural extension, “severe weather is a fact of life in Oklahoma” with “storm-related damage a major impediment to maintaining healthy trees.” But my walnut trees thrive under these conditions. And in 2011, my Black Walnut trees survived one of the hottest and driest summers in recorded history.
During the summer of 2011, the southcentral US experienced severe heat and drought. Average statewide rainfall in Oklahoma from October 1, 2010, through July 30, 2011, was 16.7 inches, 14 inches below average. The Oklahoma Climatological Survey described this as an “one of the worst short-term droughts in state history,” the “driest on record.”
The heat in Oklahoma over the summer of 2011 was exceptional. The average temperature for Oklahoma in July of 2011 was 89.1 degrees F, “more than 7 degrees [F] above normal.” It was the hottest July on record for Oklahoma, exceeding the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s. It was also the hottest month ever recorded for any state in the conterminous US.
August of 2011 was also exceptionally hot in Oklahoma. The statewide average temperature for that month was 87.7 degrees F, 7.3 degrees above average, and the hottest August on record for the state of Oklahoma.
Altogether, the months of June, July, and August 2011 were the hottest summer Oklahoma has experienced in recorded history. My walnut trees endured months of drought and extreme heat. The thermometer on my back porch commonly registered temperatures above 105 degrees F and sometimes exceeded 110 degrees F.
Two of my walnut trees compensated for environmental stress by dropping branches. Abscission in walnut is a common response to drought. But the trees survived. And they did more than just survive. They produced a large number of walnuts (see photo).

As a scientist, I understand the difference between anecdotal data and systematic empirical investigations. It is possible that my six trees may not be typical of Juglans nigra specimens in general. According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Silvics of North America, “Black Walnut contains great genetic variation for growth and survival.” Of course, the very existence of genetic variation in Black Walnut implies that it is not a fragile plant, but a hardy tree capable of enduring and surviving environmental stress.
Contrary to what the press release from Purdue asserted, my experience in Oklahoma over the summer of 2011 suggested that walnut trees were hardy, not fragile. So I decided to do what people rarely do: I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive.
The Purdue press release alleged that walnut trees are especially susceptible to damage from climate change. It stated that “warmer, drier summers and…climate changes would be especially troublesome–possibly fatal–for walnut trees.”
But the research paper read (page 1270) “there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential effects of climate change on walnut. Some studies tend to indicate walnut could be negatively impacted by climate change, while others do not.” Remarkably enough, the research paper also stated climate change could be beneficial for walnut trees. Buried in the text (page 1286) is the statement that there is “evidence suggesting walnut growth and distribution may remain stable or increase in the twenty-first century.”
The Purdue press release claimed that walnut “has an extremely narrow range.” But it doesn’t. The genus Juglansis found worldwide. The range of the species Juglans nigra alone extends over most of the eastern US. According to Silvics of North America, the natural range of the Black Walnut extends from Florida north to Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota. Juglans nigra is found on the east coast of the US westward to the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.
A genus or species with a wide geographic range must have an inherent ability to withstand the climatic variations found within its range. The wider the range, the hardier the tree. If a person wanted to portray a tree as fragile or especially susceptible to climate change, they would necessarily have to describe its range as limited.
The text of the press release asserted that “almost all climate change models predict that climates will become drier.” But the text of the research paper stated (page 1285) that “in North America and northern Europe, mean annual temperature and precipitation are expected to increase.”
The Purdue press release described walnuts as being “sensitive to cold.” This is partly correct. Like many other trees, walnuts can be damaged by late spring frosts. But spring frosts are a symptom of global cooling, not global warming. And Juglans nigra is remarkably resistant to winter cold. It can withstand winter temperatures as low as -45 degrees F. It survived the Pleistocene Ice Ages. The very fact that the genus Juglans is not extinct is evidence that these trees have survived all the climatic variations and extremes that have occurred on the planet Earth since their evolutionary origin about 60 million years ago.
Purdue’s press release stated that “walnuts would have difficulty tolerating droughts.” My experience over the summer of 2011 was anecdotal, but demonstrated that at least some Black Walnut trees could shrug off droughts, even extreme ones. One reason that Juglans nigra is resistant to drought is foundSilvics of North America. The root system of Juglans nigra is described as “deep and wide spreading, with a definite taproot…[and the tree is] able to rely on the deeper soil layers for survival during times of drought.”
Critical information was omitted from the press release. The text of the research paper stated that carbon dioxide and global warming may actually prove to be beneficial for the walnut tree. But these statements were completely absent from the press release.
Carbon dioxide fertilizes trees. Trees grow faster and larger when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. The research paper reported (p. 1280) that “a five-fold increase in CO2…generated growth increases of 70%.” The authors concluded (p. 1286) that “productivity gains associated with increased atmospheric CO2 in walnut appear to be greater than average.”
The research paper also stated (p. 1286) that global warming could benefit walnut trees by extending their range. “Milder winters may actually increase walnut establishment,” and “areas that are currently considered cold for walnut growth may see increased establishment and growth.” But the press release stated that climate change could be “fatal” for walnut trees, not beneficial.
The press release from Purdue repeatedly emphasized the economic value of walnut trees. Purdue was right. Walnuts and walnut wood are valuable. If you want people to give you money to conduct research on walnuts you have to convince them that there is a crisis at hand, and that you’re going to save them from it. You can hardly state that climate change is likely to benefit the walnut. You have to convince the public that there is some tangible benefit to be derived from the money they are giving you. So the propaganda you want politicians and the public to read is placed in a press release while the truth is buried in the scientific literature. After all, hardly anyone reads the scientific literature other than a handful of specialists.
It is not difficult to understand why people and institutions exaggerate the potential dangers of global warming and omit any mention of the probable benefits. There are billions of dollars available for climate change research. Obama’s 2011 budget allocated $2.6 billion for the “global change research program.” This stream of cash has created a monstrous industry that produces junk science that feeds demands for even more money. It is a scam.
In summary, this is a sad example of how money and ideology have corrupted contemporary science. Everything has to be tendentiously linked with climate change in order to obtain money. The public is being swindled, and the respect people have for science and scientists is being eroded. I feel especially sorry for the gullible activists who have a sincere concern for environmental quality. They’re being played for fools.
###
David Deming is associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma. His book, Black & White: Politically Incorrect Essays on Politics, Culture, Science, Religion, Energy and Environment, is available for purchase on Amazon.com.
=============================================================
I add this to Dr. Demings essay. The black walnut is common throughout California, even perrenially dry southern California. The Wikipedia entry on the tree says:
Juglans californica, the California black walnut, also called the California walnut, or the Southern California black walnut, is a large shrub or small tree (up to 30 feet tall) of the Juglandaceae (walnut) family endemic to California.
J. californica is generally found in the southern California Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, and Peninsular Ranges, and the Central Valley. It grows as part of mixed woodlands, and also on slopes and in valleys wherever conditions are favorable. It is threatened by development and overgrazing. Some native stands remain in urban Los Angeles in the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills. J. californica grows in riparian woodlands, either in single species stands or mixed with California’s oaks (Quercus spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus fremontii).
It seems development is a bigger threat than drought/heat.
English Walnuts are also widely cultivated where I live, and they routinely experience 110F + temperatures in the hot summer of the Sacramento Valley.
The two taken-home lessons both are simple: (1) the Purdue scientists’ published article is scientifically sound and well worth reading, and (2) the Purdue University press release is a fair summary of this fine work.
I’m not sure how the fact that Dr. Deming may have slightly misquoted the Softpedia article (without changing the meaning) leads to the “taken-home lesson” that ” the Purdue University press release is a fair summary of this fine work.”
Mike M says:
December 19, 2011 at 9:25 am
File under: “Whatever doesn’t kill a walnut tree probably makes it stronger.. in the long run.”
Nah. In the long run they’re all dead.
gnomish says: December 19, 2011 at 9:33 am
phake physicist is specious, disingenous and misleading:
“American chestnut (Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh.) once dominated the eastern deciduous forests of the USA before nearly all trees throughout the range were annihilated by the introduced pathogen Cryphonectria parasitica (Murr.)”
Thanks. So now we know that “A physicist” is not just a bad scientist, he also broadcasts information that turns out to be totally misleading and therefore is under suspicion of having been cultivated for propaganda purposes.
So is “A physicist” learning anything from the open, informed discussion here? Or is it just a troll, intent on repeating propaganda to trip up the unwary?
****
MJW says:
December 19, 2011 at 12:55 pm
There’s hope for the chestnut tree. Crossbreeding with a Chinese variety has produced a tree with more resistance to Asian blight, and there’s a virus that can be used to treat infected trees. A Washington Post article has more information on this.
****
OIKOS Tree Crops:
http://www.oikostreecrops.com/
offers chestnuts (originally Chinese/Amer hybrids that have been backcrossed 4-5 times w/pure Amer chestnut. So the resulting hybrids are 95+% Amer chestnut genes. From each generation, the healthy survivors (all are constantly exposed to the blight) were the parents of the next.
One of mine is 7 yrs old, about 15′ tall & 10′ wide & unaffected so far. A few wild surviving sprouts in the nearby forest are blight-infected, so the blight is present.
crosspatch says:
December 19, 2011 at 10:46 am
… That said, he is concerned that Black Walnut will not survive global warming in California and that is probably because the trees are not native here….
One of the more confusing aspects of Juglans is that while popular names such as “black walnut” are wide spread, the names disguise considerable biological variation. California’s native walnut is a black walnut, but not J. nigra. Odder still, the type species is a shrub in southern California, while the large – extremely large in some cases – tree of northern California and Oregon is considered a variety of the shrub. The tree, rather than the shrub, is the source of root stock for grafting English walnuts for orchard stock, since it is resistant to soil organisms that kill the English walnut. The tree, rather than the shrub, is also a source of “claro walnut” which is important as a wood in musical instruments and furniture. Until the 1970s, it was thought by many that no walnut was really native to California.
The short of it though, is that walnut species have weathered the vicissitudes of California’s climatic history since the Pleistocene. There is no reason short of direct interference (over harvesting the wood) that would place the California walnut at any risk from the climate’s vagaries.
A Physicist: Smokey, seedlings from the American chestnut tree that my sons and I planted in my front yard will (with luck) reach their maturity in that third century.
Yes, predicting what will happen a century from now to a seedling is exactly like predicting what will happen a century from now to the climate. Except we know what happens to trees based on millions of prior examples, while there’s no evidence at all that future climate changes can be predicted.
The title of the press release: “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change”
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Warmer, drier summers and extreme weather events considered possible as the climate changes would be especially troublesome – possibly fatal – for walnut trees, according to research at Purdue University. (this is the first paragraph of the press release)
A physist, since Dr. Deming was being critical of the press release where exactly is he wrong? The word “fatal” appears which I read to mean wiping out the species. So Dr. Deming’s critizism that some items associated with climate change should be and are over hyped seems sound.
So, Bad Physicist, you found that Deming’s “most inflammatory quote” was indeed the product of other media outlets recycling the Perdue press release in their own concocted language, just as Deming said, yet you leave in place your accusation that Deming was mis-quoting the bit about Walnuts possibly being pushed to the brink of extinction in a few decades. What a fraud.
My criticism of Deming’s piece is that he fails to note that the person who is directly responsible for the Perdue press release’s misrepresentation of Douglass Jacobs’ research on Walnut trees is DOUGLASS JACOBS. From the press release:
As Deming notes, this is contradicted by Jacob’s own paper. Deming leaves the implication that it is the Perdue press office that is responsible for the disinformation, when it is clearly Jacobs.
On the question of how warming affects precipitation, here is how Deming compares the press release with the underlying research:
If David had fully quoted the press release, readers would know exactly who is to blame for this misrepresentation:
So, a very nice bit of fact-checking by Dr. Deming, but he really ought to name names. Jacobs is the bad guy here, not the Purdue press office. As Bad Physicist shows, dishonest academics very much want to escape personal responsibility for their dishonesties, but it is better for the public know the names of these people who cannot be trusted.
Good on yah, beng! Future generations of Americans will benefit plenty from foresighted citizens like you! 🙂
On investigating, it appears that your and my young American chestnut trees, and also Dr. Deming’s young black walnut trees, have life-spans that can range up to five centuries and more … which is easily long enough that these trees will experience the full effects of whatever climate change we humans are inducing on our planet.
A thought that is both mighty sobering and mighty hopeful, eh? 🙂
That should have read “items associated with climate change should not be…”
PhilJourdan says of ‘a physicist’:
“Well, at least the criticisms of your apparent inability to read a post have struck a chord.”
That is the modus operandi of ‘a physicist’, and setting up & knocking down his own strawmen is his stock in trade. Note that he is off an running about seedlings now, instead of addressing the fact that James Hansen’s GISS couldn’t get any of their three predictions right over three decades – but they expect us to believe they can predict the biosphere three centuries from now. As if.
Smokey, to speak plainly, Dr. Deming’s assertion “I was taken aback by the claim that walnut trees were somehow especially sensitive to climate change” refers to a claim that appears nowhere in the Purdue scientific article or in the press release associated to it.
The Purdue article itself is outstanding science. I encourage everyone to read read it … and to think about our children, and their children, and the planet they will live upon … and then go forth and plant long-lived trees. 🙂
****
SteveSadlov says:
December 19, 2011 at 11:41 am
I see lots of Black Walnut orchards in the hot, hot inland areas of California.
****
I’d wager those’d be Carpathian aka “English” walnut, Juglans regia, the commercial walnuts in grocery stores.
However, I’ve seen plantations of B walnut in southern PA that were planted for wood.
Actually, I believe this posting exposes an opportunity for another semi-regular feature here at WUWT. Examples of environmental propaganda that rely on an ignorant public to simply swallow it as “true” without questioning.
The Goebbels Files or something.
Someone let David out of the basement again? Given he has zero background in atmospheric science, it was always amusing to read his misinformed rants at OU, much like this one. So you’ve contributed to disproving AGW by picking apart a single press release, rather than doing any actual science? Deming never fails to disappoint, LOL!
A physicist: Smokey, to speak plainly, Dr. Deming’s assertion “I was taken aback by the claim that walnut trees were somehow especially sensitive to climate change” refers to a claim that appears nowhere in the Purdue scientific article or in the press release associated to it.
“How can you possibly say that, given the first three paragraphs of the press release?”
A physicist says: December 19, 2011 at 12:53 pm …
Here’s an analysis of troll-like behaviour. The subject of this article is (1) the distortions of Purdue University’s press release, and further distortions by the Press, led by the press release, compared with the (good) article itself – and (2) how those distortions are typically what gets lodged in most people’s minds because most do not [have time to] check the paper itself. To most people here, this piece is a clear story of why balanced press releases are essential – and how the AGW scare has corrupted this essential part of science. But this is what you said:
Rubbish statement. “Specific detail” refers to what’s given through the WHOLE story. Dr Deming reports an easily-verified storyline, starting from his queries over the press release, then his own observations from life that support his doubt, leading towards a more thorough scientific investigation. Heck, this is how science HAPPENS, and if one is a real scientist, one recognizes the pace of appropriate observations and references from one’s own experience. Deming clearly states your “most inflammatory” quotes to be from one “media recycler” and only used them to make his point about media hyping. I found them in 30 seconds Googling – and they were quoted correctly – or do you want to split hairs, troll-style, over “correct”? Now here’s the Purdue press release (all relevant parts):
WALNUT TREES MAY NOT BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE
Warmer, drier summers and extreme weather events considered possible as the climate changes would be especially troublesome – possibly fatal – for walnut trees, according to research at Purdue University. …They found that the trees are especially sensitive to particular climates. “Walnut is really restricted to sites not too wet or dry. It has an extremely narrow range,” said Jacobs… “We suspect and predict that climate change is going to have a real impact on walnuts. We may see some type of decline of the species.” Specifically, walnuts would have difficulty tolerating droughts that could be associated with a changing climate.
I’ve bolded the statements that most obviously turn the more balanced evidence of the paper into alarmism and scare. But really, the whole piece is aimed at alarmism. All this is crystal-clear obvious to most people here. You end by saying
but you have missed the point. The press release is NOT a fair summary. Press releases and reports have a duty to pass on the same balance as is in the paper itself. Moreover, all the evidence of commenters here shows that the statements are not simply alarmist, they are wrong. Walnut is not “restricted” to an “extremely narrow range” if it can stand Oklahoma extremes of temperature and precipitation, if it has a wide genetic base, and if it is found globally in very differing climates.
That’s the first and last time I analyse in detail what I and others here probably grasped in about ten seconds flat. I shall therefore bookmark it for future troll guidance. But I shall be delighted if you now show you can improve the quality of your observations and science and ability to learn from commenters here.
Are black walnuts as difficult to extricate from their shell, but just as tasy, as brown walnuts?
Dr Deming, thank you.
I followed your story, your speaking out about the (then unknown) warmist who had said to you “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” and the horrible context of that remark – to covertly use IPCC flagship statements like Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick (false statistics) to promote alarmism and the debasement of science. We now know, from the emails of Climategates 1 and 2, that even if the statement was not made by the suspect in question, it is of a piece with the whole attitude of “The Team”. I remembered hearing how you had been dismissed from your post (IIRC) on account of your views, and how at that point you appeared to have disappeared from mainline Climate Science, like most of the other good scientists, Tim Ball and so on. I remembered your name because the sense of injustice rankled me.
I’m so glad to see you publishing here, and moreover publishing a whole book of “politically incorrect” good science etc.
Please people, buy copies and do reviews! Don’t let this book get “deleted” from Amazon as it seems Vaclav Klaus’ book has, at least at Amazon.co.uk
Lucy, my point is simpler than yours. Namely, skepticism that ignores the science in question, and instead cherry-picks quotes-of-quotes-of-press releases, is not useful skepticism. Is it?
Judge for yourself. Here’s a (hopefully) working link to the science in question. Doesn’t this article provide precisely the kind of balanced coverage that solid skepticism ought to strive for?
It’s interesting that the most soundly, scrupulously, and transparently skeptical actors in this whole drama are … the Purdue scientists themselves! 🙂
physicist, that link is behind a paywall.
A physicist says: December 19, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Lucy, my point is simpler than yours. Namely, skepticism that ignores the science in question, and instead cherry-picks quotes-of-quotes-of-press releases, is not useful skepticism. Is it?…
I disagree. Go back to what I said. Deming cherrypicks an extreme example, deliberately and openly, to help make a point that is relevant to his thesis. You, in quoting him, missed the context with its crucial nuance of “deliberately and openly”. Moreover, Deming does not “ignore the science in question” in his article. Perhaps you need to re-read that too. He likes the paper. But we need to always remember the point of Deming’s whole story, about irresponsible hyping in press releases that stick in the folk memory because people have little time to read the full paper.
Your “point” is a “simple” diversion from Deming’s central point.
The following mail was sent. I am eagerly waiting for the answer.
____________________________________________________
from: Peter Berényi
to: Brian Wallheimer
cc: Douglass Jacobs, Martin-Michel Gauthier, Keith Robinson
date: Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:28 AM
subject: Questions related to press release “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change”
Dear Mr. Wallheimer,
I have read your article Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change, published on November 28, 2011 by Purdue University News Service, with concern.
The press release is apparently based on the following research paper:
Annals of Forest Science, 2011
Volume 68, Number 8, 1277-1290
DOI: 10.1007/s13595-011-0135-6
REVIEW PAPER
Walnut (Juglans spp.) ecophysiology in response to environmental stresses and potential acclimation to climate change
Martin-Michel Gauthier and Douglass F. Jacobs
In relation to this I have questions and it would be exceptionally kind of you to provide the answers.
1. Have you submitted your article for review to Prof. Jacobs and Dr. Gauthier before publication?
2. If yes, have they endorsed it as a faithful representation of their ideas as expressed in the research paper referenced above?
3. If not, please describe the standard procedure at your institution, routinely followed before issuing a press release.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely yours,
Peter Berenyi
It was fast. I still wonder what “source checked” is supposed to mean?
_________________________
from: Wallheimer, Brian J
to: Peter Berényi
date: Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:44 AM
subject: Re: Questions related to press release “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change”
All releases at Purdue are source checked prior to distribution. This was no exception.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Meanwhile, down under the Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre at the University of NSW suddenly discovers more interesting climate change-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/waterbirds-flourishing-due-to-flooding/story-e6frea83-1226226192339?from=public_rss
“Like many plants and animals, reproduction and recruitment of waterbirds coincides with widespread flooding on rivers,” he said. [particularly after long General Droughts]
“We are increasingly realising that waterbirds can reflect what is going on in rivers.” [Hallelujah, deck the halls!!!]
“We have seen a response that we thought might never happen again,” Professor Richard Kingsford said. [stick around long enough prof and you never know your luck]
“Earlier surveys have regularly shown a long-term decline since 1983, but now overall bird numbers have bounced back, well above the long-term average.” [we only got funding for flying around in fossil fuelled aircraft in 1983]
“We haven’t reached the previous heights of the early 1980s but this result highlights the importance of … floods over a large part of the continent.” [what good environmental news would come without the usual disclaimer, despite sample bird counts being as reliable as recent polar bear observations?]