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.
Smokey says:
December 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm
“…there is nothing unusual happening globally.”
Agreed. You wouldn’t know it, however, from the recently released version 3 of GHCN, wherein urban stations all across the globe that DID NOT manifest strong upward long-term temperature trends have had their data adjusted so that they now DO. Take a look, Smokey, at what has been done to the Salta, Cuiaba, Vilnius, Vladivostok etc., etc. historical records. These fabrications make the basket of USHCN snakes that you have flash-compared elsewhere look harmless by comparison. When such data changes occur overnight, it’s a small wonder that “unprecedented disaster” is just around the corner in the minds of the gullible.
‘a physicist’ says:
“So if there’s even hotter and/or drier drought conditions to come…”
You just don’t give up on the “what ifs”, do you?
Incurable cognitive dissonance.
Scott, perhaps the Purdue authors didn’t write what you suggest, because they knew it would be wrong?
The low-end official estimate of Texas tree deaths this year was 100 million. The high-end official estimate is 500 million. As for what one more year of heat and drought might bring, the possibility of one billion trees dead of heat and drought in 2012 cannot be excluded.
That is why no responsible scientist is likely to endorse your assertion that “an increase in temperatures would not likely be a significant problem”, whether that statement applies to walnut or to any other tree species.
A physicist says:
December 20, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“The present drought appears to be the most severe in US history.”
Compared to the time scales over which Holocene climate has varied, US rainfall time-series are quite short. Unlike supra-millenial records, short-term records are very likely to be broken in any given year.
Frank – several here including myself HAVE responded to Purdue. The responses have been – paraphrased (snark added):
Here is the specific response I received to my detailed email posted above:
While I thought my email was pretty straightforward and not terribly inflammatory, the last sentence seems a subtle (or not) shot across my bow 😉 … it is clear though, at least to me, they see nothing wrong with their release.
To “a physicist:”
I’m not going to waste any time on your posturing with false dichotomies.
‘a physicist’ goes off the deep end:
“Sky, if you’re suggesting that we Americans should stand by passively and ignorantly while our coastal cities drown and our farmlands turn to dust…”
Sea levels are rising by only a couple of inches per century – and the rise is slowing. And while some areas are going through natural, cyclical drought conditions, other areas are having higher than normal rainfall. It all averages out globally.
Folks with common sense and basic scientific understanding will say: that’s the normal ebb and flow of natural, regional climate change. Others who are not grounded in reality will label folks with common sense and scientific understanding ‘passive’ and ‘ignorant’.
Cognitive dissonance – Orwell’s “doublethink” – infects the victims of climate alarmism, and causes them to blame human activity for every weather blip. Their mental derangement is sad to behold.
A physicist: The present drought appears to be the most severe in US history. So if there’s even hotter and/or drier drought conditions to come — as some climate-change science predicts — then we had best avert these disasters if we can, and prepare for them if we cannot.
Since the phrase “the most severe in US history” was a hyperlink, I assumed it was to an article declaring the present drought “the most severe is US history.” All I found was a map showing the current drought conditions. I know the current drought is said to be the worst one-year drought in Texas history, but even in Texas there was a worse drought from 1950 to 1957. Imagine what you’d be saying if that drought or the 1930s dust-bowl drought were occurring today. Oddly enough, I can imagine exactly what you’d be saying.
A physicist says:
December 20, 2011 at 6:01 pm
A. Scott asserts: [the Purdue commentary should have been] We found an increase in temperatures would not likely be a significant problem for walnut, to the contrary they would see increased establishment and growth, and an expansion of their growing range.
Scott, perhaps the Purdue authors didn’t write what you suggest, because they knew it would be wrong?
The low-end official estimate of Texas tree deaths this year was 100 million. The high-end official estimate is 500 million. As for what one more year of heat and drought might bring, the possibility of one billion trees dead of heat and drought in 2012 cannot be excluded.
What I wrote was directly from the paper – the same paper you claim is such a good piece of work.
Regardless, perhaps you could share with us exactly what part of a small (compared to global scales, or even US scales) localized drought has anything to do with global climate change?
There’s no need to imagine MJW, when you can read for yourself about the science and the history of Texas droughts.
Particularly if Dr. Deming lives in the Texas-Oklahoma panhandle region, he has grave reason to be concerned that his walnut trees are dropping branches because the drought is killing them.
I live in southern Indiana, a short distance from Purdue University. We lost several large black walnut trees in the tornado a few years back. I still have many black walnut trees and they are doing just fine. I also have several Paw Paw trees. They are a tropical fruit tree. I wonder how Indiana grew tropical fruit. Could it be that the weather was much warmer before we entered the ice age. And will this area again warm up when the current Pleistocene Ice Age that we are in, comes to its final end in a few million years from now.
A physicist wrote: December 20, 2011 at 5:44 pm
(my bold, in place of link, qv, original post)
When challenged by MJW (December 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm), you provided another link (below) to support your claim that the current Texas drought is the most severe in U.S. history:
http://www.c2es.org/blog/huberd/2011-texas-drought-historical-context
But that link doesn’t support your claim, either.
Most of us know that official U.S. history starts around 1776, or so, and – lest we forget – successful European colonies have been maintained in N. America only since about 1600-1650, a period of time not substantially different from the length of time successful Viking colonies were maintained on Greenland.
More background and historical context on Texas droughts, From the NYT:
Assessing Climate Change in a Drought-Stricken State
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/26ttdrought.html?_r=1
Smokey says:
How can that be, when the global temperature has risen only ≈0.7°C over the past 150 years?? Will a change of 0.7°C ‘seriously impact’ plant life? Only in the fevered imagination of a climate cultist.
Especially considering that the plant in question has an expected lifespan of 150-400 years…
A physicist says:
The present drought appears to be the most severe in US history.
It’s perfectly possible that there are walnut trees in what is now the US which are older than the country. A few hundred years isn’t that long when considering some of the longest lived organisms on the planet. It would be more meaningful to consider if present conditions are more severe than those experienced by the ancestors of the trees around now.
A physicist: There’s no need to imagine MJW, when you can read for yourself about the science and the history of Texas droughts.
The article says pretty much what I said in my first reply — the current drought is the worst one-year drought in Texas history. That doesn’t satisfy your original claim that it’s the most severe drought in US history. And it certainly doesn’t address the point you were replying to, that there have been really bad weather events in the past, which if they were occurring today, you’d gleefully cite as evidence of climate change. You’re like those religious doomsdayers who point to every international conflict as one of the wars and rumors of wars foretelling an imminent Armageddon.
The C2ES page The 2011 Texas Drought in a Historical Context provides a fair synopsis of my own views, and in particular, it certainly provides Dr. Deming with ample grounds for concern regarding the health of his walnut trees.
Recommended to all, skeptic and scientists alike.
A physicist says:
“The present drought appears to be the most severe in
USTexas history.”There. Fixed.
Texas is not the U.S., nor is it North America, nor is it the Northern Hemisphere, nor is it the globe. Texas is a very small region of the planet. But when that’s the card the wild-eyed alarmists were dealt, that’s the card they have to play. Pathetic argument, though.
McIntyre, McKitrick, Briffa, Jones & John Daly emails.
https://sites.google.com/site/myteurastaja/activist-groups/climate-sceptics/kimmo-ruosteenoja/mails
How do I contact Dr. Deming,
I have some questions about a paper he did on the “hum” phenomenon.
There’s some strange stuff going on and I was wondering if it was related.
This kind of stuff is being heard around the world and recorded.
His paper.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_4_deming.pdf