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.
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?
————————————————————————————————————————
A physicist, did you even read the post? The entire messsage conveyed in the post was how the Purdue press release misrepresented the paper, which then percipatated more misreprentations throughout the media. It therefore follow that your sentence above is nothing but misrepresentation of David Deming’s post; a classic strawman. In the future please endevour to keep your comments cogent to what the post actually states.
Lucy, cherry-picking extreme examples is the practice of politics and demagoguery, not science and skepticism.
To my mind both the article and the press release were commendably even-handed, as (IMHO) anyone who reads them side-by-side will agree.
As for web sites that “cherrypick extreme examples” (in Lucy’s phrase) … well, such web sites scarcely ever contribute anything substantial to science or skepticism, eh?
Another mail was sent.
____________________________________________
from: Peter Berényi
to: “Wallheimer, Brian J”
cc: Douglass Jacobs, Keith Robinson
date: Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:07 AM
subject: Re: Questions related to press release “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change”
Dear Mr. Wallheimer,
thank you for your prompt reply. However, I still wonder what “source checked” is supposed to mean exactly in this context. The perceived precariousness surrounding this expression may be the fault of my deficient English.
Was the check performed by the authors themselves or someone else?
Sincerely yours,
Peter Berenyi
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Wallheimer, Brian J wrote:
> All releases at Purdue are source checked prior to distribution. This was no exception.
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
beng says:
December 19, 2011 at 2:08 pm
****
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.
You’ld be half right. The English walnut is grafted on to a J. hindsii root stock in California. Unlike the southern Califrornia species, which is a shrub, Northern California Black Walnut is a big tree and also the source of “Claro Walnut,” which is really beautiful wood, if you can get it. The chief source used to be when walnut orchards were cleared. The English walnut wood was to subject too much reaction (warping, bending, crooking, and bowing) to be worth much, but the B/W trunks were good for a small fortune. For some reason practices have changed, the grafts are much shorter and yield far less timber than they used to.
@Robert of Ottawa
Black walnuts have a strong, distinct flavor, not as subtle as the English varieties. You will find them in the baked goods aisle.
@Peter Berenyi, thank you for pursuing this. If indeed the authors approved the press release, this is, in my view. perciesely the kind of “potential fraud” Cristopher Monckton would like to consider potential legal action on for willful misrepresentation of science for the purpose of “the cause”
As a Boilermaker – this makes me angry…
IMHO, it’s a good idea for folks to read for themselves (1) the Purdue article, and (2) the Purdue press release.
All citizens who do this common-sense reality check will learn plenty about walnut trees and about climate change! For example, I had not appreciated that bud break now is coming steadily earlier in the spring, in consequence of warming global temperatures, and that this exposes walnut trees to higher risk of frost damage.
All-in-all, the accompanying press release is a pretty fair & reasonably well-balanced 420-word nontechnical summary of an exceedingly rich 12,000 word scientific article … so it’s kind of hard to understand why WUWT folks are so exercised by it.
But don’t take my word for it. Read the article for yourself. Then go plant trees! 🙂
My email to the writer, authors and the Purdue Newsroom management:
————————————————————————————————-
Global Warming and Walnut Trees: a Case Study in Deception
EXCERPT:
[Excerpts from David’s excellent commentary were included here]
How do you respond to this well presented, and factually supported indictment of your press release regarding the Black Walnut study?
It notes your PR piece was a gross misstatement of the overall findings in the report – little more than anthropogenic global warming propaganda and puffery unsupported by the scientific facts, largely refuted by direct quotes from the report itself?
It would seem you lose all integrity and credibility when you resort to the formulaic global warming scaremongering, especially when the claims are largely not supported by the actual research in the paper quoted. I understand full well this is a concerted, purposeful plan by the warming advocates, to use PR to win the battle that science cannot, but is that how you want your institution to be seen in the public eye? That, as a public institution, you will misrepresent scientific findings to promote a political agenda?
Had the author of this anthropogenic global warming PR piece even read the “Results” section of the Abstract he attached, he could have seen the headline, and overall content of the PR piece, is inappropriate to the findings:
Further – the included Jacobs quotes, such as “Walnut is really restricted to sites not too wet or dry. It has an extremely narrow range” and “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.” are demonstrably largely false, based on the report itself, and real world examples.
Black Walnuts survive and thrive in most parts of the US, including, as the writer at the link provided noted, in the central plains. They also thrive here in my state – Minnesota – with some of the harshest winters in the continental US. Real world facts show they do not have a narrow growing range, and are readily able to and have adapted to a wide variety of environments, including locations with wide climatic extremes annually.
You don’t need a goal “to find walnuts that may be able to stand up to the heat or cold stresses that trees could be subject to in a changing climate” … simply gather seeds from trees ALREADY GROWING and thriving in those environments today. Unlike anthropogenic global warming, here the science IS settled – black walnut tress already HAVE adapted to both heat and cold extremes and are doing just fine, even in extreme range climates – like those in Minnesota, or in the heat and drought of the central plains like Oklahoma.
Add that the actual report, showed the authors found that increased CO2 was significantly beneficial to black walnuts, and in fact that black walnuts were one of the highest growth species under increased CO2 conditions:
This finding is directly contrary to the tone and perception of the PR piece and the statements of the authors quoted therein. In the PR piece Jacobs was quoted:
The most significant warnings about anthropogenic global warming, which has been transmuted into the much more convenient “climate change,” is regarding the increase in CO2. In fact increase in CO2 is ironically one of the only things about the climate debate that is largely agreed on.
The author Jacobs is quoted that climate change is going to have a real impact on the walnuts, yet his own report shows that the most significant part of “climate change” – the increased CO2 – is good for the walnuts, and in fact they are one of the highest ranked beneficiaries of this change of all temperate hardwoods.
This is exactly the reason – the apparently flimsy excuse for a scientific study (which in this instance seems to mostly be a recycling of other research), to investigate something that already is well known and settled (black walnuts do – in the real world – grow quite well across many climate extremes), and then worse, to write a press release that attempts, in direct opposition to the facts in the report, link to anthropogenic global warming – is the reason a rapidly growing consensus of the ‘real public’ and the scientific community, is determining that the global warming “science” is largely just “hot air” – strong on arm waving and scary rhetoric – and very short on facts. As with this PR.
You should be ashamed. You are supposed to represent a fact based, academic approach. Not political, cause promoting grandstanding rhetoric.
Can there be any better example of the old adage “Can’t see the forest for the trees“?
Here the scientists are too busy spending presumably public dollars doing alleged “science” – looking for global warming goblins affecting the forest, when all they had to do was look at the trees actually in existence right in front of them – growing just fine in the extreme climatic ranges they claim could be the downfall of the species.
I would ask for and suggest a retraction of this clearly erroneous and purposely deceptive press release, but sadly, I’ve found it to be too often the norm – supported and encouraged in the ongoing quest for more of the public “pie” of global warming research funds.
A. Scott
Now we do know it for sure. According to Mr. Wallheimer “The authors approved all information contained in the release.”
Therefore if “The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive.” indeed, it was a deception said to be endorsed by the authors themselves.
Still, it would be nice to hear their side of the story.
_______________________________________
from: Wallheimer, Brian J
to: Peter Berényi
date: Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:48 AM
subject Re: Questions related to press release “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change”
The authors approved all information contained in the release.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
I red the entire report – as clearly did David. The press release is a sad parody – the majority of the points and claims are refuted by the paper itself.
Worse – the “paper” is most a recycling of other works with little apparent actual science being done. Its conclusions show that Black Walnuts are largely not adversely affected by either warming temperatures or increased CO2, but to the contrary benefit from both.
Also in direct contradiction with the press release – the paper mostly shows global warming would be beneficial to the black walnut population – in growth rates and growing ranges.
It is absolutely clear the author set out with a clear agenda as shown in the press release and in the authors comments in the paper. That agenda and comments however are not supported by the overall weight of the conclusions in the paper.
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm
“Are black walnuts as difficult to extricate from their shell, but just as tasy, as brown walnuts?”
If by “brown walnuts” you mean the English type (also Carpathian) then I think you have them confused. Black Walnuts seem designed to frustrate those that would harvest and consume them – explaining why I give most of mine to others. The English type (found in stores, shelled or not) naturally separate from the green husks and can easily be extracted from the shells – about 80% unbroken halves. Husks can get maggots and need to be controlled. Interesting report here:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/news/hortmatt/2004/28hrt04a8.htm
Scott, the authors and editors are likely to be baffled by your criticism, since this is more-or-less what a “Review Paper” — as the article is prominently labelled — is supposed to be.
Perhaps if you reread it — this time appreciating it as a review article — you will agree?
Frankly, it seemed like a reasonably thorough, balanced, well-written review article to me (taken as a whole) and the press release too was a pretty far summary of the article (also taken as a whole).
Robert of Ottawa @3:55
Black walnuts have hard, thick shells and it is hard to get the meat out. I usually leave it to the squirrels unless my wife needs some for a particular recipe. The black outer covering makes a good brown stain – especially on your carpet if you’ve walked on one or more with your boots. Really drives your wife nuts.
And thus shows the success of the science by PR process:
And interestingly one of the authors and several other email addresses from the release or Purdues site are wrong.
A physicist says:
December 19, 2011 at 5:48 pm
“Then go plant trees! ”
I live in the “edge” of two zones: shrub/steppe and Ponderosa Pine forest. I’ve planted 7 needle-leaf type trees. The Ponderosa do in fact, do best here. Still the others grow well enough – if I get enough water on them. As a volunteer for our local county conservation district I have helped sort and tag thousands of trees over a 10 year period. So, I’ll add that if one doesn’t have the space or ability to plant trees and shrubs there is still something you can do.
All the various comments are entertaining – but I had to get the popcorn out.
Please share how the PR piece – which is entirely biased towards AGW scare mongering – that the black walnuts are in mortal peril due to climate change – accurately reflects the findings – the “Results” from the paper:
It does not. Not even remotely. And many of the assertions are outright false – in the PR piece and the paper. These trees do not have a narrow growing range – they grow in all type climates across most of the US. They are not threatened by global warming – the paper shows increased CO2 is significantly beneficial to the trees, and that increased temperatures would increase their growing range.
It is a poor paper and an even worse PR piece. Designed for exactly the purpose achieved – an alarmist PR headline, almost diametrically opposite to the results found in the paper, used to promote the AGW agenda.
It is a well defined and purposeful plan – that the AGW proponents have hatched up to counter the success of the skeptics – to use blatant PR puffery, unsupported by the science, to do what the science can not.
When you are in a deep hole, then for goodness sake, stop digging.
You have misjudged your audience.
You are creating new converts for realism and anti AGWism, every time you post.
Time for bed now, there’s a good boy!
Sleep tight.
Happy dreams good night and good bye.
Don’t forget your tablets.
you may feel better in the morning.
I’ve got a couple of English Walnut trees here in Western Washington (Whidbey Island). I’ve never seen them in distress from either heat or cold. The produce copiously every year. And I have to prune the lower branches off constantly so I can mow under them without getting decapitated. They’re great shade trees.
AusieDan says:
December 19, 2011 at 8:03 pm
@Ausie, I guess your post is directed at A physicist. If so I must agree. I wonder if he is a physicist. At any rate, from his childish remarks, I can only summize that his academic career has been quite unremarkable.
> the natural range of the Black Walnut extends from Florida north to Massachusetts,
Natural, I suppose that’s right. There are cultivated (and often forgotten) black walnuts around home (just north of Concord NH). A couple trees aren’t doing too well, but others are fine. There are also some I’ve found next to a baseball field in a park south of Concord.
I generally don’t take the time to harvest the meat, but I’ve collected several fruits when my wife was experimenting with natural dyes, and black walnuts are a strong natural dye. (Another reason to not harvest them!
We don’t have the extreme weather of the plains, but we have variable weather that presents its own challenges.
While I do agree with a good portion of this article, there are a number of significant flaws in the writer’s logic.
For one the writer states: “But spring frosts are a symptom of global cooling, not global warming.” This is false. Global warming can cause greater turbulence in weather patterns leading to both warming and cooling spells greater than what is expected on average. Heat is energy, and more energy equals greater variance in temperature, both warmer and colder.
Second, the writer states “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.” I hate to tell him this, but a larger nut (or fruit) crop on a tree can and usually signifies stress. It is survival-of-the-species for a tree to produce more when the tree itself is threatened and may be in danger of expiring. Also, abscission refers to the dropping of leaves or young fruit to conserve moisture and/or ward off pests. Abscission does not include branches. Abscission describes parts that are normally shed like leaves and fruit at different stages then what is the norm for the plant.
While it is true that walnuts can handle a wide variety of climate conditions, what the author has neglected to understand is that climate change is about what is occurring over many years and not just one year. The idea premises that walnut trees are in danger is due to continuous stress that occurs over many seasons, leading to damage to the species as a whole.
I wish this writer good luck with his trees. I suspect that he has jumped the gun with his assumptions and it will be next spring and summer that will ultimately show proof of how the trees faired. I hope my suspicions are incorrect and this writer does not find that he has sick trees next year, or even dead trees. It would be interesting to hear back on how things turned out.
Regardless, the writer has a poor understanding of science. He jumps to obvious conclusions through simple observance without taking into consideration the complexities of the world around him. For example, he draws the conclusion that walnut trees are hardy because they have “survived the Pleistocene Ice Ages.” What the writer fails to understand is that large sections of North America were able to support walnut tress even during the Pleistocene Ice Ages, most likely his very own state of Oklahoma. He also may fail to understand that ice ages occur over thousands of years, encroaching and receding slowly, not suddenly, allowing a species like the Black Walnut to survive beyond the reaches of glacier impact.
What A Scott said +1
The PR release is monumental exercise in subjectivism, everything is left to the reader to judge what ‘warmer’ ‘drier’ and ‘extreme’ are supposed to mean. There is no quantification whatsoever – what on earth is ‘possibly fatal’ supposed to mean; the state of anything actually being ‘alive’ is always, permanently and totally fatality – nothing lives forever. What actual ‘work’ went into this?
What I see in the press release is the workings of a guilt ridden and chronically depressed mind – (maybe lay off the booze for a few months eh mister?) How it can foretell increased frost risk in a ‘warming world’ is just bizarre. Yet we’re expected to nod sagely and agree with it because he’s ‘a scientist’. For fear of not appearing foolish, many folks do just that. Wow, just look at the extreme quality of stitching on the Emperor’s new coat!!!
I can only conclude that there’s been a spelling mistake in the name of the university – isn’t it Purgatory University? – (and if I’m the first to ever crack that joke then I am The New Emperor, and claim my £5)
Another Walnut tree story: I moved a walnut seedling from the old family farm in Southeastern Ontario (near Kingston) to my home in Vancouver, BC about ten years ago. Nicknamed “Wally” it is doing just fine in a pot in the back yard of my current house, having survived it’s moving experiences of the past tens years: 1st the move from Ontario to BC (2500 miles west, about 6 degrees further north), and planted in the front yard of my then house. Five years later it was dug up and put in a smallish pot when I sold the house and moved to new digs – where it sat in the pot in the back yard, then two years ago, again moved (and into a somewhat bigger pot) to another house where it sits in the backyard on a concrete pad in its larger pot. All these houses are in a five block radius of my first house (same climate).
I usually completely forget to water it – and we have summertime dry spells that can last for weeks, and I do nothing to protect it from freezing in the winter (we get to -10C in the winter) yet it is still going strong.
Not exactly a weak-hearted tree!
Pete – what you are seeing is in my opinion, clearly the work of a purposeful, premeditated plan – as clearly defined by the “climate rapid response team” … who decided since science was no longer working, that they would win the war with Press Releases, where they can frame the issue as they choose, without the pesky constraints of facts, or actual science.
They know full well the web, along with the main stream media, who are too lazy to follow up with researched, let alone well researched, stories will rush off based on the headlines. You can see this effect clearly in the Google search results I showed above.