Month: April 2017

BBC Peddle RHS Climate Lies

BBC Peddle RHS Climate Lies


By Paul Homewood




The Royal Horticultural Society has just published a 45 page report “Gardening in a Changing Climate”. I strongly suspect that most gardeners will get most value out of it by putting it in the compost bin!

It has been written by Dr Eleanor Webster, who is employed by the RHS as a climate scientist. Quite why they feel they should be wasting members fees on a climate scientist is beyond me.


The BBC report gives a feel for the rubbish it contains:



Artificial lawns, plants from arid countries and flower beds designed to cope with floods are among future features of UK gardens outlined in a major new report.

As the world warms and weather patterns shift, the study by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) concludes that British gardens will need to adapt.

Traditional designs with "immaculate, well-watered lawns" and "Edwardian" borders may be too hard to maintain if the weather becomes more volatile.

The report warns that climate change looks set to bring more extremes and more erratic weather with stronger storms, heavier downpours and more intense heatwaves potentially damaging plants and eroding soil.

But the authors also welcome the prospect of longer growing seasons and say there are new opportunities to use more varied plants in wider areas of the country.

They identify a sharp divide across the UK with climate change bringing contrasting prospects to different regions.

Dr Eleanor Webster, who coordinated the RHS report, told the BBC: "The key thing is that the south of England is going to be hotter and drier throughout the year with some heavy rain showers and then the north of England is going to be certainly milder but it is also going to be wetter in the summer and in the winter.

"The south of England is going to mainly be about water conservation and the north of England is going to be about managing a wet and warm environment."

The report points to the most recent decade being 0.9C warmer than the period 1961-1990 and to an increase in rainfall over Scotland and the north of England over the past century.

Before we look at the detail, there are two fundamental reasons why this study belongs in the bin:

1) British climate is notoriously volatile, and this volatility on a year to year, month to month, and even day to day basis drowns out any tiny climatic signal that there may be.

Indeed, there is no such thing as a “normal” or “average” climate in Britain.

Gardens have survived decades of this “weather”, and certainly won’t be inconvenienced any climate change.

This can easily be seen in the annual temperature and rainfall records for England:


England Mean daily maximum temp - Annual

England Rainfall - Annual


2) Gardeners won’t be in the least bit interested in what their descendants might be growing in 50 or 100 years time. So why waste money on this report now?



Let’s now look at some of the claims made in the study. It is worth pointing out that, although it talks of future projections, the report is clear that these things are already occurring.


1) The report warns that climate change looks set to bring more extremes and more erratic weather with stronger storms, heavier downpours

We are back to the “extreme rainfall” myth, so it is time to demolish it once and for all.

Below is an analysis of the wettest months in England since 1910. Contrary to Met Office spin, these were much more common in the past, though we again see the comparative dearth in the 1970s and 80s.

The wettest month of all was December 1914.




2) The report warns that climate change looks set to bring more intense heatwaves.

To which the answer is Cobblers.


England Mean daily maximum temp - Summer


3) The south of England is going to be hotter and drier throughout the year

The Met Office divides England into two regions.



According to their data, there has been no significant change in day time temperatures in the south, since 1990. There is no evidence whatsoever that temperatures will rise in coming decades.




Since 1910, annual rainfall has been notable for its volatility.

The wettest year was 1960, and the driest in 1921.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that the south will become drier.




4) The north of England is going to be certainly milder but it is also going to be wetter in the summer and in the winter.

As with the south, temperatures show no signs of rising.




As for rainfall, apart from 2012, which was clearly an outlier, annual rainfall in recent years has not been unusual, and is within the bounds of normal variability.




5) The scenario for East Anglia envisages an average temperature 5C warmer than now. Lawns will be replaced by synthetic grass.

Downpipes will channel the limited summer rain to underground tanks. Garden centres will precondition plants to become used to drought. And shade will come from almond, peach and olive trees.

East Anglia tends to be the driest corner of the country, and climate alarmists often paint a picture of it turning into a drought ridden dustbowl.

In reality, rainfall patterns there have not changed since 1910.






Unsurprisingly the BBC give the report top billing, with David Shukman calling it a major new report.

He uncritically lists its findings, apparently under the misapprehension that it is a serious study, and concludes that what we think of as a classic British garden will look very different in the decades ahead.

I only wish I could say the same about the BBC!


April 30, 2017 at 06:39AM

Awesome Morning For Wildlife Photography

Awesome Morning For Wildlife Photography

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Doesn’t get much better than this. All taken in wetlands on the CU South campus, which CU and the progressive City of Boulder want to destroy.

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

April 30, 2017 at 04:42AM

Inside a True Believer’s Mind

Inside a True Believer’s Mind

via Science Matters

At Slate Susan Matthews writes Bret Stephens’ First Column for the New York Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism  It doesn’t outright reject the facts—which makes it all the more insidious.

Key Paragraphs (my bolding for emphasis)

But in reality, the goal of this column is not to help readers learn how to reason with people who are skeptical about climate change. Instead, the column reinforces the idea that those people might have a point. The New York Times push notification that went out Friday afternoon about the column said as much—“reasonable people can be skeptical about the dangers of climate change,” it read. That is not actually true, and nothing that Stephens writes makes a case for why it might be true. This column is not a lesson for people who want to advance good climate policy. Instead, it is a dog whistle to people who feel confused about climate change. It’s nothing more than textbook denialism.

The institutions Stephens questions in his column are not singular entities but entire ideas—scientists who may not see their biases, statistical models that might be skewed, liberals who may be so swayed by their ideology. His argument is convincing because the institutions he mentions can make mistakes. It’s true, there are some problems with how we use probabilities in science. We tend to be bad at distinguishing between correlation and causation. Sometimes our biases do get in the way. Stephens knows this, and he taps into it in his piece. “Much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities,” he suggests. You have to be an idiot or a zealot to believe climate change is certain, whispers the subtext.

The Credo

Regardless of what Stephens says in this column, and regardless of Clinton’s modeling failures, climate change is a terrible threat to life as we know it on this planet. Anyone who wants to honestly investigate the data will come to the same conclusion that the scientific establishment has—climate change is real, and dangerous. Our failures elsewhere—even in the disturbing wake of the election of Donald J. Trump—do not negate that. The questions are no longer whether and how but how soon and how bad. Climate change is happening, and “claiming total certainty about the science” does not “traduce the spirit of science.” Instead, it is a reasonable interpretation of the science at hand.

Don’t Give an Inch

What he is suggesting here is that the rational way to go forward with a conversation about climate change is to admit that climate change might not be certain. This is similar to the torturous logic he puts forward throughout the rest of the piece—the only way to be reasonable about this topic is to give in to those who are unreasonable about it. While he calmly insists he is the only logical person around, he is spewing complete bullshit.

Stephens article itself is excerpted at  NYT Opens Climate Can of Worms


via Science Matters

April 30, 2017 at 04:24AM

April Cold Blast Across Central Europe Brings Unexpected Widespread Crop Damage

April Cold Blast Across Central Europe Brings Unexpected Widespread Crop Damage

via NoTricksZone

Official weather offices report that April mean temperatures were colder than normal across Central Europe.


According to the preliminary results for April, 2017, from Germany’s DWD national weather service, the month came in at a mean temperature of 7.5°C for the central European country, or 0.8°C colder than the 1981-2010 mean of 8.3°C. This makes the month completely NOT in line with the warming that Germany’s DWD expects.

After a record warm March, the DWD wrote in its March report that it was all expected as part of climate change. For April they made no mention of global warming, citing weather patterns.

The DWD wrote that in April “drought, snow and reoccurring frosts” placed a “considerable burden on the the plant world“. In the southern Black Forest region, especially in Singen and Buchenbach, new record lows were set for April. Nationwide April’s low temperature was set in Oberstdorf: -10.1 °C.


Meanwhile Alps-dominated of Austria saw it’s coldest April in 9 years – and the coldest in the current decade, according to the preliminary April results form the Austrian ZAMG national weather service.

New cold temperature records for the second half of April were set at the airports in Graz and Innsbruck at -5.5 °C and -4.4 °C respectively.

“Extreme” snow amounts

Although frosty temperatures and snow are not unusual in April, the ZAMG writes that the new snow amounts on April 19 and 20 were in part very unusual, especially in the area im Gebiet of the Ybbstaler Alps and extending to the Wienerwald. For example in Lunz am See (612 m) it snowed 65 cm within 24 hours. That would be an extremely high value even for an entire winter month. On April 20 there was 86 cm of snow on the ground in Lunz am See. This has never happened in the second half of April since measurements began in 1896.

The ZAMG reports that the severe late April cold snap caused “widespread frost damage” to many fruit plants.

Switzerland, Italy

Meteo Suisse has not yet released it’s preliminary April report, as this is done typically around the 10th of the following month. But media reports show that the late April cold and frost did not spare Switzerland or northern Italy.

Bitter cold and crop destruction occurred in hard hit Switzerland. According to the online NZZ here, as a cold wave in the second half of April “caused great damage to fruit and vineyards in large parts of Switzerland“.

“Nightmare” for Italian vineyards

The cold wave also hit Italy’s farmers at a bad time, the NZZ reports, as some regions saw temperatures fall below zero and was accompanied by by icy winds. Frost destroyed the early white budding grape varieties such as the Chardonnay, Sauvignon and Pinot grigio. Also red grape sorts such as Cabernet and Merlot were hit, the NZZ reports.

The NZZ characterized the the vineyard damage as dramatic in the regions of Val d’Aosta and Friuli Venezia Giulia, where it reports that “many crops froze”.

In Piemont foremost in the region around Asti and Barolo there was heavy damage. In Lombardy the provinces of Padua, Mantua and Modena are hard hit.”

Here in the Lower Saxony flatlands of northern Germany, I had to keep sensitive garden plants covered overnight on at least 4 occasions over the second half of April.


via NoTricksZone

April 30, 2017 at 03:04AM