The truth about ‘We have to get rid of the medieval warm period’

English: Average temperature of the Northern H...

The MWP: Average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere during the past 2000 years. The grey lines are the annual reconstructed estimates. The bold curve is the low frequency component (estimable between 133 and 1925). Colours indicate especially cold and warm periods. (Cold: Migration Period and Little Ice Age; warm: Medieval Warm Period and the Present.) The thin lines are the 95% confidence intervals (uncertainty due to the variance among the different proxies used). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the thread Intelligence and the hockey stick commenter “Robert” challenged a well known quote about the MWP from 2006 by Dr. David Deming in his statement before the Senate EPW committee which is the title of this post.

I thought it was worth spending some time setting the record straight on what the original quote actually was and point out that it has been paraphrased, but the meaning remains the same.

Robert says:

December 8, 2013 at 9:50 am

The quote is a fabrication. Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are:

“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

Christopher Monckton, like Andrew Montford before him, alters the text to instead read:

“We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”

My reply:

I checked for a citation, and the quote you state is correct: 
http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt

From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Subject: the new “warm period myths” box
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:38 -0700
Cc: Eystein Jansen , Valerie Masson-Delmotte

Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.

So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort. “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.

Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it.

Best, peck

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

As to this being a fabrication (as Robert claims), no, it’s a summation or a paraphrase of a long quote, something that happens a lot in history. Monckton and Montford aren’t specifically at fault in this, as the summed up quote has been around for a long, long, time and it appears to have originated with Dr. David Deming’s statement to the Senate. (see update, it goes back further than that- Anthony)

The conversion to a paraphrase maintains the meaning. “Mortal blow” certainly equates to “get rid of” (as it is often said) or “abolish” as you (and Monckton/Montford) state it, and “we” equates to “I’m not the only one”.

The most important point is that Overpeck thinks the MWP (misuse) should be gotten rid of so that people that don’t agree with his view can’t use it (as citations).

And that, is the real travesty.

[Added] And, by eliminating citations, he effective kills the the existence of the MWP in science, relegating it to an unsubstantiated claim. As we see in related links below, that has not happened.

UPDATE: The room is often smarter than me, and many have more historical experience than I, and for that I am grateful.  Dr. Tim Ball points out (as does David Holland) in comments:

With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

He later reiterated this in his presentation to the Senate on 12/06/2006 here

http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

Notice he didn’t say who sent the email, but rumours developed that it was Jonathan Overpeck.

As I recall Overpeck denied being the author of the e-mail , which precipitated extensive commentary by Steve McIntyre;

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/

Steve McIntyre points out in his article:

Be that as it may, while Overpeck was concerned that Deming might produce a “fake email” purporting to show Overpeck seeking to “get rid of the MWP”, Overpeck hasn’t challenged the authenticity of the Climategate email in which he aspires to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP.

About these ads

240 thoughts on “The truth about ‘We have to get rid of the medieval warm period’

  1. seriously? i’m on your side and think many of them are crooks, but he SPECIFICALLY SAYS get ride of the “MISUSE” , not the actual MWP. learn to read

    REPLY:
    I view it differently, as do many others, but I’ll edit for clarity. It is about the disappearing it in literature – Anthony

  2. One mans use is another’s misuse – what exactly is the context of the misuse he complains about? The fact that he uses the term ‘ supposed’ suggests he doesn’t believe there were historical warm periods even on a regional level.

  3. Seriously? The “misuse” he is referring to is any “use” of the term.

    “misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths”

    He wants the MWP to disappear because he claims it doesn’t exist, hence “supposed warm periods”. To him the MWP is a “myth”, so ANY use of the term is a misuse.

    learn to read – with comprehension.

  4. Likewise, I’m also on your side but I must agree with jeff. The paraphrase does not accurately convey the meaning of the original.

    REPLY: It has to do with the literature, see my addition about that – Anthony

  5. I don’t see use of the word “misuse” as clarifying much of anything. Misuse is in the eye of the beholder and the full quotation in the e-mail suggests “misuse” in Overpeck’s mind means using historical warm periods to argue against the uniqueness of the present “warming.” Probably the worst sin of the academic proponents of glbal warming, AGW, or any other euphemism is their “contrary evidence be damned” attitude. It is utterly unscientific.

  6. Overpeck appears to start from an assumption that cagw is real and therefore the present warming must be of a different nature to that of the medieval period. Until he can prove this, the rest of us can carry on ‘ cit(ing) these periods as natural analogs for current warming too .’

  7. Hey jeff,
    You say ‘learn to read’ but I counter with ‘learn to interpret’. If I say the cat is fat do I mean a feline is fat or a man is fat? Depends upon the context, right?
    p.s. cat = man in one american culture.

  8. @jeff: I think the phrase that stands out for me is “supposed warm period terms”. The implication there is that these aren’t *real* warm periods, they are simply “supposed warm periods”.

    The other odd assertion is that previous warming can be considered “time-transgressive”, but somehow we’re supposed to believe that modern warming isn’t also “time-transgressive”…it screams of “it’s different because we said so”.

  9. My recollection is that Deming made the statement and Overpeck said he didn’t want to correct it for fear of Deming producing a “fake” email confirming it.

    Now that is a rather odd statement to make. If someone claims I said something I didn’t, the natural reaction is to set the record straight and say in plain language, “no, I didn’t state that”. Who is reluctant to tell the truth for fear of being contradicted by a forged document? Which is more likely? That Overpeck didn’t want to refute the statement because he knew very well it was true, or that he didn’t want to refute the statement because Deming would forge correspondence?

    Not to mention that showing that an email was faked is rather trivial for any competent IT shop, so Overpeck had little to fear on that score anyway. The only thing he had to fear was Deming having an email that said what Deming claimed it said. Overpeck’s fear of refuting the statement combined with his mind bogglingly lame excuse tells any rational person what they need to know.

  10. “The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.

    I like this sentence since he clearly differentiates sceptics from the uninformed. Praise indeed.

  11. And just how do the pedants interpret these words:

    . . “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

    Was this just ‘an expression’ or a figure of speech by a ruler in 12th century England?

    .

  12. It appears there is much confusion here. The comment about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not come from the leaked CRU emails. It was already in the public forum from David Deming in this quote;

    With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

    He later reiterated this in his presentation to the Senate on 12/06/2006 here

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

    Notice he didn’t say who sent the email, but rumours developed that it was Jonathan Overpeck.

    As I recall Overpeck denied being the author of the e-mail , which precipitated extensive commentary by Steve McIntyre;

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/

  13. He also, to anyone who understands English, refers to “getting rid of it” – at least in its then-accepted form as a global phenomenon similar in magnitude to current warming – in his second paragraph:

    ——————————————————————————
    So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort
    ——————————————————————————-

    A “dismissive effort” can’t really mean anything but “getting rid of”, it as it was understood in all the previous literature because, as long as it’s in the records in that form, it can’t be dismissed as an issue for AGW theory.

  14. Watching Detroit Lions vs. Philadelphia Eagles football game. Wondering if Al Gore is at the game. The snow is pretty deep.

  15. I cannot believe these guys!!!!!. They will do almost anything to make sure the spin continues as to man as cause for the recent warming. There is some very interesting material presented in a book I read recently, that indicates within the Medieval Warm Period the Chinese actually sailed around Greenland. You cannot to my knowledge to that today…

  16. Anthony I think you are 100% right to pursue this, it needs to have more discussion I would question the motives of any “scientist” who wants data that interferes with his/her theory removed. I think that this would make the theory seriously flawed and the scientist in question fraudulent, because they are continuing to be paid for their research and have cost the lives of hundreds of people living in fuel poverty and the hard earned cash of people paying for wind farms and the other “carbon friendly” schemes

  17. Leon0112 says December 8, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Watching Detroit Lions vs. Philadelphia Eagles football game. Wondering if Al Gore is at the game. The snow is pretty deep.

    Wow .. thanks for the head up …

  18. WARNING!!!!! I received a message on my computer telling me that the link starting BUMMER (stoptheaclu.com) will take me to a website that will infect my computer with malware.
    Is this a new tactic of the warmists?

    REPLY: those similar stories are automatically suggested by WordPress, I assumed they had been vetted. I’ve removed the link – Anthony

  19. But the IPCC did get rid of the MWP. Between SAR and TAR it was disappeared from numerous graphics and charts.

    Because it was not supportive of their case for the need to aggressive AGW.

  20. None other than Steve McIntyre did an excellent summary on the Deming/Overpeck issue in a CA posting of April 8, 2010, 7:59 AM titled “Dealing a Mortal Blow to the MWP” (Google that title). Well worth reading of course.

  21. An FP article also contains the exact disputed wording.

    http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

    “Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. “

  22. Hmm, I always thought that was a verbatim quote. Guess not, as Steve McIntyre explored in http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/

    The best Climategate Email covering the issue appears to be http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1206628118.txt where Overpeck is quoted with:

    > > Hi Phil, Kevin, Mike, Susan and Ben – I’m looking
    > > for some IPCC-related advice, so thanks in
    > > advance. The email below recently came in and I
    > > googled “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
    > > period” and “Overpeck” and indeed, there is a
    > > person David Deeming that attributes the quote to
    > > an email from me. He apparently did mention the
    > > quote (but I don’t think me) in a Senate hearing.
    > > His “news” (often with attribution to me) appears
    > > to be getting widespread coverage on the
    > > internet. It is upsetting.
    > >
    > > I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any
    > > record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive
    > > search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I
    > > assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long
    > > ago, and that he’s taking the quote out of
    > > context, since know I would never have said what
    > > he’s saying I would have, at least in the context
    > > he is implying.
    > >
    > > Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually
    > > ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can
    > > imagine that it could take on a life of it’s own
    > > and that I might want to deal with it now, rather
    > > than later. I could – as the person below
    > > suggests – make a quick statement on a web site
    > > that the attribution to me is false, but I
    > > suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
    > > a fake email. I would then say it’s fake. Or just
    > > ignore? Or something else?
    > >
    > > I googled Deeming, and from the first page of
    > > hits got the sense that he’s not your average
    > > university professor… to put it lightly.
    > >
    > > Again, thanks for any advice – I’d really like
    > > this to not blow up into something that creates
    > > grief for me, the IPCC, or the community. It is
    > > bogus.

  23. Mosher: “That claim needs to
    1. Verified Or
    2. retracted.”

    Indeed, if climate science held itself to the same standard we’d be rid of this pestilence at once.

  24. The actual quote is more diabolical and damaging than was was uttered by LCM.

    I read “myth” and “supposed” as denials that the MWP actually occurred.

    Seriously? “MYTH” and “SUPPOSED”?

    Seems to me that they are,in fact, trying to abolish a historical record.

    Monckton is off the hook because their intent is clear and even disturbing.

  25. Rick Werme;
    I could – as the person below
    > > suggests – make a quick statement on a web site
    > > that the attribution to me is false, but I
    > > suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
    > > a fake email.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yup, that was my recollection. He says he didn’t say it, but doesn’t want to say so because Deming might produce a fake email. Right. Any competent IT shop can prove an email is fake in minutes, so Overpeck had zero to fear on that score. He’s essentially accusing Deming of lying in Senate testimony, and then refusing to back up his accusation on some lame excuse. The more reasonable explanation is that Overpeck in fact said what Deming claimed he said, and knew full well that disputing it would expose him for having done so, so he comes up with excuses to not address it.

  26. The paraphrasing was close enough in context to justify itself, and so what if Deming did not save a copy of the original email, as the actions of the CAGW crowd speak for themselves – the MWP did “disappear” from their storyline.

    Mosher – I am glad that your posts always keep us on our feet, but this time you are off base with your statement that this subject matter needs to be verified or retracted. Deming admits that he did not retain/archive the email. I once witnessed two antelope jumping a barb-wired fence (for those who are not familiar with antelope, that was a one-in-a-billion sighting, for antelope run under fences). Can I verify it? Nope! But it sure as hell happened.

  27. I am most grateful to Anthony and others here for verifying the word-for-word quotation from Dr. Deming that I used. I took certain steps to verify the quote some years ago. It is genuine. It dates from 1995. In 1998/9 Nature printed the Mann/Bradley/Hughes hockey stick and the IPCC picked it up in 2001. That nonsensical graph has represented the “official” position ever since, even though hundreds of papers in the reviewed literature, using measurement rather than modeling, provide evidence that the medieval warm period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present.

  28. Here’s the YouTube video of Deming’s testimony and “bonus material.” The quote is at 1:07 and repeated with graphics at 4:25. From YouTube:

    Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.

    Transcript of the hearing is at http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

    I assume someone must have asked Deming who sent that Email. There seems to be a general purpose assumption that it cam from Overpeck, but it seems to me it could have come from just about anyone. Especially anyone Michael Mann was in contact with.

  29. A distinction without a difference, the meaning of the ‘quote’ from these so-called climate scientists is clear. Whether it gets hot, cold, or stays the same, their solution is always the identical, socialism masquerading as environmentalism. Kick these dishonest hacks, and their lackeys, out of the national policy decision loop. Go down with the ship climate comrades, we’ll be laughing at you all the way down, just take some temperature readings when you reach bottom, so we can pull you back up and start laughing at you again. You’ve earned it.

  30. Watts writes: “As to this being a fabrication (as Robert claims), no, it’s a summation or a paraphrase of a long quote, something that happens a lot in history.”

    When someone puts quotation marks around a paraphrase they have created a fabrication. In this case the “summation” alters the meaning as other have noted. The key word “misuse” of ignored in the “summary”. Some here may think the paraphrase is what Overpeck really meant in his heart, and they may or may not be right, but the shortened paraphrase does not have the same literal meaning of the actual quote. Fabrications happen a lot in history, that does not make then true.

  31. It is not as if the most recent cutting edge science can overthrow the glacial studies that show the global nature of very real and repeated cold and warm periods throughout the Holocene.
    See:
    Grove, J.M., Little ice ages : ancient and modern 2 Volumes. Routledge studies in physical geography and environment, 5. Vol. 2 Volumes. 2004, London; New York: Routledge

  32. Jeff, seriously?
    Are you seriously on the skeptic side but seriously defending Overpeck’s conspiracy?
    And what’s with the no caps then all caps style
    Is that meant to make your response look ‘spontaneous’…seriously?

  33. ”“Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.”

    How is recent GW not a time-trangressive event? I think Bob Tisdale’s posts establish its varied occurrence over time and place. Even their own declarations establish the last Santer (17 years) as being confined to the conveniently unmonitored portions of the world.

  34. Actions speak much louder than words. Based on the actions that occurred in the months and years following 1995, it is obvious exactly what the “intent” was regardless of how it was phrased. As a scientist myself, nothing did more to convince me that CAGW was a scam than when the MWP and LIA magically started disappearing as if they had never happened. Their brazen attempt to get rid of the MWP and LIA, rather than deal with it, probably was the biggest miscalculation they ever made as I suspect it resulted in converting a huge number of people from “undecided” (myself included) about AGW to sceptic, even going so far as to give a lunch time seminar on the topic at my place of employment. I was driven at that point to start doing extensive searching for the truth, and I believe it has been found… CAGW caused by CO2 is clearly NOT a problem based on data. Actually, the data that is there so far indicates that the increased CO2 levels are actually BENEFICIAL to humans (and plants) at least up to current levels.

  35. Words are one thing deeds another , and what the hockey stick did was .get rid of the MWP , and for that the IPCC and friends were so grateful they never thought to ask if Mann’s work was worth a dam in the first place.
    And as we have seen a number of times , once something becomes part of ‘the causes ‘ dogma it must be defended regardless of its scientific worth .

  36. I posted this on the last thread but it is more suited here. Sorry, I hadn’t got this far. And besides, all my posts are held up for moderation – don’t know why.
    ~~~
    1 The MWP was real.
    2 Some people wanted to lower the profile of the MWP.
    3 Mann’s Hockeystick conveniently lowered the profile of the MWP and was welcomed by “mainstream” climatologists.

    Does anyone doubt points 1, 2 or 3?

    For me the quote under discussion is important because it exonerates the “mainstream” climatologists of a worse deception. The quote implies that the MWP was distracting from the current warming.
    I think the MWP provides another source for the current rise in atmospheric CO2. The ice-cores show that CO2 follows temperature with about an 800 year lag.

    And the “mainstream” climatologists knew that too.

  37. Felix said at December 8, 2013 at 12:11 pm in part:

    “When someone puts quotation marks around a paraphrase they have created a fabrication. “

    Really! Surely Felix would not have us believe that the “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” (claimed by Deming in his 2006 Senate testimony, saying it was sent to him about 1995) is a paraphrase of the longer statement (as “Robert” suggests) from the Climategate emails of 2005 which none of us could have seen until 2009. Does Felix suppose that Deming in 2006 summarized/paraphrased (or fabricated from thin air) and put in the Senate record material from a Climategate email that was not public (or copied to Deming) until 2009? If not, anyone subsequently quoting that phrase is at minimum quoting a U.S. Senate record.

  38. There is a Mann email where he talks about reconstruction/s to “contain” the MWP. Why would a scientist be putting the word in scare quotes? Because there are two meanings in play.

  39. If only Heartland would give Deming $2000 to pay his ISP to pull that e-mail off its backup tapes and send it to him!

  40. ‘Robert says:

    December 8, 2013 at 9:50 am

    The quote is a fabrication. Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are:

    “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

    Christopher Monckton, like Andrew Montford before him, alters the text to instead read:

    “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.” ‘

    The debate over this claim has focused on meanings. That is a useful thing to do. However, it has overlooked a clear intention to censor and a clear expression of a desire to silence those who disagree with the warmist position. Yes, Overpeck might actually believe that claims to the effect that the MWP was warmer than today are myths. But he does not express a desire to expose the myths as falsehoods. Acting on that desire would be entirely admirable. Instead, he expresses a desire to do away with the terminology altogether. That is a desire for censorship in a scientific debate. As John Stuart Mill explained, a scientist can stoop no lower.

  41. Fascinating discussion about the exact wording of the conspiracy to abolish the MWP…of course the concrete proof that this conspiracy took place the complete absence of the MWP on Warmist graphs!

  42. The graph is a great example of scale exageration to make whatever point one is spinning. Stretch the time (X) axis out a little and start the temperature (Y) axis out at zero and the lesser informed better understand that very little change which has occured in temperature over the past 2000 years ( about 0.6 of one degree C from max to min). Not that this is unimportant.

    However, searching the literature, it is very difficult to find anything about what a one or two degree DECREASE in average annual temperature would do to crop yields in Canada, Russia and China for example. Northern crop growing areas suffer quickly from colder weather. Of course all weather is regional and average annual global temps may have greater or lesser effects in a given area particularly with changes in precipitation, etc. which may also occur.

  43. davidmhoffer says:
    December 8, 2013 at 11:06 am
    Overpeck’s fear of refuting the statement combined with his mind bogglingly lame excuse tells any rational person what they need to know.
    ================
    agreed. Overpeck makes a number of statements:
    1. “I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago,..”
    2. “…he’s taking the quote out of context…”
    3. “…this Deeming guy could then produce a fake email”
    4. “…he’s not your average university professor… to put it lightly”

    Overpeck is apparently reluctant to refute something that is untrue about him. The reasons he (Overpeck) gives are that Deming would engage in improper behavior, either quoting out of context or faking an email.

    Yet, Overpeck has no reason to think Deming would engage in improper behavior. Indeed Overpeck goes on to say of Deming “not your average university professor”. So why would Overpeck think that Deming would do something improper?

    Is it possible that Overpeck suspects that Deming would act as he (Deming) would act? In which case disappearing the MWP is “normal” behavior, consistent with quoting out of context or faking emails. Doesn’t the cheating husband suspect his wife, because that is what he would do?

  44. Mr. Courtney
    Hope your dad is OK, he normally is very active on CO2 and coal subjects, but has not contributed recently. All the best to the old passionate and enthusiastic combatant.

  45. I don’t know why it is so hard to get these things right. Misquoting and misattribution is so prevalent that no-one knows who said what any more.

    Lord M was not referring to the 2005 email. He was referring to the comment made by Deming some time after the 1995 Science article, and mentioned in later Senate testimony. But that reference is thoroughly inaccurate in that Deming never attributed the statement to Overpeck (nor did he produce the email). And Overpeck says he didn’t say it.

    And as said here, the statement from the Overpeck CRU email is not a paraphrase of “abolish the MWP”, nor did Lord M claim it as such. Overpeck wants to deal a mortal blow to “misuse”. Well, who wouldn’t?

    Getting it right is not just a civic duty. It saves time.

  46. I also failed to notice you had started a new thread on Deming and will repeat a couple of points here.

    First, remember that Fred Pearce corroborated the idea that the ‘team’ were definitely looking for a ‘hockey stick’ in 1996.

    Tim Barnett, then of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, part of the University of California, San Diego, joined Jones to form a small group within the IPCC to mine this data for signs of global warming, ready to report in the next assessment due in 2001. “What we hope is that the current patterns of temperature change prove distinctive, quite different from the patterns of natural variability in the past,” Barnett told me in 1996. Even then they were looking for a hockey stick.

    Secondly this is not a trivial matter as later Climategate emails show and if you look at all the evidence. Overpeck more than anyone organised the survival of of the Wahl and Ammann 2007 paper and made the decision, or more exactly approved Solomon and Manning’s decision not to formally record and forward Steve McIntyre’s entirely valid detailed response requesting the citation of the Wegman and the NRC Reports in the critical section of AR4 WGI Chapter 6 where WA 2007 was used to cast doubt upon McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers. I have little doubt that my request to see the responses to the July 2006 WGI TSU PublicationDeadline email, is what caused Phil to ask Mike to delete his emails re AR4 and to say that Keith would do the same. FOIA probably had no idea what this was about but may have thought it looked a bit too dodgy.

    Chris Horner has obtained emails that show that Overpeck told Eugene Wahl to contact Stephen Schneider long after WA 2007 had missed the 16 December 2005 cut off date. Overpeck told Wahl that Schneider “knew the drill”. Then on 28 February 2006 – the cut off date for final pre-prints – Wahl emailed Overpeck suggesting he might contact Schneider to get his paper declared ‘in press’ in time to distribute pre-prints to the expert reviewers. Schneider did so at the 11th hour but then Wahl and Ammann ‘forgot’ to give the TSU the ‘in press’ version to post on the WGI website.

    The Deming matter is part of the tome of evidence of the team’s chicanery and the IPCC’s total lack of any fitness for purpose.

  47. Judge the AGW promoters by their actinos and it is clear they sought to get rid of the MWP. Even now they seek to deny it was large scale. The promoters ignore the multiple lines of evidence of the MWP because they know it is a severe counter fact to their apocalyptic claptrap.
    Notice that Overbrook simply asserts that today is significantly different from the MWP and the other well documented warming periods. He provides no evidence.
    The AGW faithful are disputing the accuracy of the quote as a way to ignore the meaning of the quote
    The AGW faithful are like any other group of faith-based believers- theywould rather discuss the text of the scripture in a way that allows them to control the conversation than to deal with the issues raised.

  48. I enjoyed your piece recently on the great big hole Dana Nuccitelli has been digging for himself with his refusal to accept his error about Roger Pielke, jr.
    I’m sorry to see you’ve got the shovel out and seem determined to head in the same direction as Nuccitelli, even if the error is someone else’s and not your own.
    What Monckton wrote is this:
    “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”
    I’m sure you noticed those quotation marks. Once quotation marks are used there is no possibility, as you so lamely suggest, that we are dealing with summation or paraphrase.
    Misquotation is not something to be taken lightly. Once caught misquoting, the only legitimate response is to apologise and promise to be more careful in the future.
    Summation is a very different thing from quotation and yet you use the phrase ‘summed up quote’. Is this a coinage of your own? If it is, you should be ashamed of such an abominable misuse of language.

  49. Who cares what the exact form of words was?

    It’s the old common-sense case of:
    “I heard what you said but I know what you meant.”

  50. It’s the “supposed”, not the “misused” that is gives the game away. He himself either considers the MWP as a “myth” (implying that he discards the data) or he presses the notion that the MWP ought to be presented as a myth to lower its significance. Both constitute intellectual dishonesty.

  51. We have to get rid of the influence of carbohydrates on physiology, and just blame dietary cholesterol, said now rich doctors, as many still say to this day, deceptively, as they poison patients with statins.

  52. “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”

    The pure rubbish originated in the mainstream and was adopted by sceptics without question. And that was thinking that temperatures in Greenland move in the same direction as the mid latitudes. The word from climate science is that the Minoan warm period was 1500-1200 BC, history shows that the Minoans flourished from 2700-1500 BC, their demise was around 1300-1200 BC, when Greenland was at its warmest, while the mid latitudes were at their coldest: And at around 2200 BC there was a cold period in the mid latitudes that caused widespread cultural collapse, which again was a notably warmer period in Greenland. http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/980217DD.html
    So the truth about the medieval warm period is hardly going to be confirmed by the warm period in Greenland around 1000 AD: http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg

  53. People can’t do “inductive quoting” to turn the Deming statement into an Overpeck quotation. It is not a documented direct quotation of Overpeck.

    If someone wants to directly quote Overpeck, they should directly quote Overpeck! Use the stolen/leaked email then, including the word “misuse”. You can’t ‘paraphrase’ that word out while still using quotation marks.

  54. Nick shares a load of crap with

    And as said here, the statement from the Overpeck CRU email is not a paraphrase of “abolish the MWP”, nor did Lord M claim it as such. Overpeck wants to deal a mortal blow to “misuse”. Well, who wouldn’t?

    Getting it right is not just a civic duty. It saves time.

    What was claimed as being misused, Nick? Read it again – look specifically for “supposed warm periods”. He is claiming we (skeptics and the uninformed) are misusing supposed warm periods meaning warm periods that don’t exist. The complete sentence says he wants to deal a mortal blow, that is, to end, terminate, misusing non-existing warm periods (presumably an invention of the skeptics and uninformed) [and other myths]. The problem for his is those warm periods did exist.

    But you are right about our civic duty – save us all some time, next time, and get it right and also completely right.

  55. “Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    And as said here, the statement from the Overpeck CRU email is not a paraphrase of “abolish the MWP”, nor did Lord M claim it as such. Overpeck wants to deal a mortal blow to “misuse”. Well, who wouldn’t?

    Getting it right is not just a civic duty. It saves time.”

    You did not get it right. The relevant quotation reads:

    “In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”

    He wants to shut up the sceptics. He wants to end discussion of the MWP as a natural analog for current warming. As regards the word ‘misuse’, it is his responsibility to explain the misuse and give rational reasons for rejecting it. He did not even consider it. This is a call for censorship in scientific debate.

  56. Ed Zuiderwijk says: December 8, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    “It’s the “supposed”, not the “misused” that is gives the game away. He himself either considers the MWP as a “myth” (implying that he discards the data) or he presses the notion that the MWP ought to be presented as a myth to lower its significance. Both constitute intellectual dishonesty.”

    This is the problem here – a single sentence is abstracted from which people think something can be made (with effort), and single words get parsed to convey some hidden meaning. But Overpeck had plenty else to say about the MWP and how it should be presented. In the CRU email quoted above by clipe, he says, in caps:
    “I **ABSOLUTELY** AGREE THAT WE MUST AVOID ANY BIAS OR PERCEPTION OF BIAS. MY COMMENT ON “NAILING” WAS MADE TO MEAN THAT ININFORMED PEOPLE KEEPING COMING BACK TO THE MWP, AND DESCRIBING IT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IT WASN’T.
    OUR JOB IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT IT WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DATA. IF THE DATA ARE NOT CLEAR, THEN WE HAVE TO BE NOT CLEAR. THAT SAID, I THINK TOM’S FIGURE CAPTURED WHAT I HAVE SENSED IS THE MWP FOR A LONG TIME, AND BASED ON OTHER SOURCES OF INFO – INCLUDING KEITH’S PROSE. THE IDEA OF A FIGURE, IS THAT FIGURES CAN BE MORE COMPELLING AND CONNECT BETTER THAN TEXT. ALSO, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO LOOK AT THE MWP, AND AS LONG AS WE DON’T INTRODUCE BIAS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL DILUTE THE MESSAGE IN THE END, THE IDEA IS TO SHOW THE MWP IN MORE WAYS THAN TWO (THAT IS, THE EXISTING FIGS IN THE TEXT THAT KEITH AND TIM MADE).”

    Maybe his evaluation of the MWP doesn’t coincide with yours. But he’s not trying to abolish it.

  57. The context after the fact of the who, what, when, where, and how of the exact wording of the quote is what is relevant here. There is no question that several members of the AGW science club wanted to downplay the use of the MWP by sceptics to show equivalent historical periods with warming. There were probably group discussions off the record about the relevance of that period to modern warming. We will never know the exact wording of those off the record discussions. We only have the aftermath. Therefore I think it can be concluded that the MWP was slated to be downgraded in importance so that current warming could stand in the kind of light they wanted: a unique circumstance. It was then a much easier leap to anthropogenic sources. Everything else is mincing words and splitting the hair on the ass of a gnat.

  58. Theo Goodwin says: December 8, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    “You did not get it right.”

    I did:
    “As regards the word ‘misuse’, it is his responsibility to explain the misuse and give rational reasons for rejecting it.”
    He’s not writing to you. He’s writing a private email to colleagues, and they have work to do. His responsibility is to them.

    But he says “to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”. “warm period” is an adjectival phrase. He wants to stop misuse of terms and myths. Most people do; they may disagree about the facts of what is misuse.

    As I said in my comment above, in those same private emails, he had plenty to say about what the right thing to do is in presenting MWP, and if you actually try to find what he is really saying, it’s fine.

  59. @TBraunlich
    “What did he mean by his criticism of the MWP as only a “time-transgressive event”?”

    I understand it to mean that the changes in temperature were slow and gradually varied up or down, thus to be interpreted as changes that necessarily take time if they are natural.

    They were planning to sell the ‘rapid rise’ of temperatures as ‘proof’ that it was ‘unnatural’ which is exactly what was claimed later. To assist this, older temps were edited downwards and modern temps were padded with warming. Still, it did not rise as fast in the 80′s as in the 20′s.

    So the intent was to make it appear that only AG CO2 could possibly account for the recent rate of rise – as was later claimed. Problems were many, including the cessation of any increase in global temperature from about 1997. For the CONUS it is much longer. In fact there has been some claims that there was a solar change in 1992 with delayed consequences. Let’s see how that plays out because it is mostly the sun in the first place.

  60. “The paraphrasing was close enough in context to justify itself, and so what if Deming did not save a copy of the original email, as the actions of the CAGW crowd speak for themselves – the MWP did “disappear” from their storyline.

    Mosher – I am glad that your posts always keep us on our feet, but this time you are off base with your statement that this subject matter needs to be verified or retracted. Deming admits that he did not retain/archive the email. I once witnessed two antelope jumping a barb-wired fence (for those who are not familiar with antelope, that was a one-in-a-billion sighting, for antelope run under fences). Can I verify it? Nope! But it sure as hell happened.”

    ########################

    Deming actually wrote me and backed away from his claim. But I misplaced the email.
    you buy that of course?

    This is pretty simple. When warmists claim they get death threats we demand to see the mail.
    Deming doesnt have the mail. We have nothing but hearsay. The monktopus is pretending
    that this is not hearsay. And none of you skeptics have the balls to call him on it. A real skeptic keeps his standards of evidence straight: we demand to see the mail when somebody whines about a death threat. we should demand to see the deming mail. If deming didnt keep the mail, then too fricking bad, all we have is hearsay. More importantly the climategate record is the better source than demings hearsay.

  61. Steven Mosher says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    “The monktopus is pretending
    that this is not hearsay. And none of you skeptics have the balls to call him on it. A real skeptic keeps his standards of evidence straight:”

    Who even cares. Warmism is dead.

  62. Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    I guess I have to explain to you that calling something a myth does not make it a myth. Saying that something is a ‘misuse’ of language does not make it a misuse of language. No doubt the people receiving the email agreed with his claim. But they are just as wrong as he is.

    I will give you a test. What is/are the misuse(s) in question? Did he explain them to you? Can you explain them to us? Did he publish on the matter?

    But the truly telling detail is that he wanted to do away with the claim that the MWP shows natural variation that exceeds present warming. There is no misuse in that claim. There was then and there is now no reason to treat that claim as a myth. He wanted to censor scientific debate.

  63. @ Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 2:56 pm ,
    Where is the email you are referring to in the quote you refer to?

    Steve,
    Yes, we need to see emails. (btw, where is CG3?) But we also have years of actions by the ‘team’ to erase the MWP. I never used Deming’s claim about emails to reach the conclusion that the ‘team’ is diddling the evidence and playing games. Their actions inform that conclusion.

  64. Just like they tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period …

    … They tried to get rid of Overpeck’s email saying that “we must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.

    If there is something that cannot be forgiven about the warming movement, it is their re-writing of history over and over again.

    Do you trust someone who changes constantly changes their own personal history.

    Not with your money you don’t. Not with anything that matters you don’t. You must be very cautious in dealing with a person/movement like that.

  65. Steven Mosher says:

    December 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    +++++++
    I’ve been waiting for this thread to sort itself out.
    Of course you are correct, if it’s all hearsay.
    At this point I still don’t know what to think, or if I even care.

  66. Informative debate on this topic. Given the position skeptics are in I think it is imperative to quote, and attribute quotes, to people exactly. I’m sure those caught with their hand in the cookie jar would love nothing more than to be able to “prove” skeptics have exaggerated or embellished their words and it is they who have it all wrong because they “took it out of context”.

  67. Theo Goodwin says: December 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    “Did he explain them to you? Can you explain them to us? Did he publish on the matter?”

    He did not explain them to me. I was not a participant in the email conversation.

    He did publish on the matter. They were discussing diagrams in Chap 6 of the AR5, of which he was a lead author. Fig 6.10 shows a NH recon with a MWP. Box 6.4 is devoted to the MWP. It concludes:
    “The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).”

    It’s not exactly what you wanted to hear. But it’s what they believe can truly be said.

  68. Robert McCloskey Quotable Quote
    “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

  69. Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    “It’s not exactly what you wanted to hear. But it’s what they believe can truly be said.”
    ___________________________
    Do you think that Briffa, et al actually believe that now? Do you believe that? Should any of this be seriously discussed in terms of belief or doubt?

    The phrase, “it’s what they believe”, can be used to provide cover for any number of less than honest statements. Wouldn’t you agree?

  70. correction to immediately previous post… sentence should read:
    “The phrase, “it’s what they believe”, can be used to provide cover for any number of less than honest or accurate statements.”

  71. Bill Illis says: December 8, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    “Just like they tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period …

    … They tried to get rid of Overpeck’s email saying that “we must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.

    If there is something that cannot be forgiven about the warming movement, it is their re-writing of history over and over again.”

    Well, there’s a bit of rewriting. You made that up. Deming is the only one claiming to have had such an email, and he can’t produce it. And he never said it was from Overpeck anyway.

  72. hunter says: December 8, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    “Where is the email you are referring to in the quote you refer to?”

    Linked by clipe says: December 8, 2013 at 2:13 pm

  73. It seems to me that here we perhaps stretch the truth about that particular “quotation”, and even though perhaps the intent was there and in the event the MWP was certainly extinguished from certain reconstructions, I believe over-interpretation of how things were phrased looks a bit desperate and may serve to undermine much of good technical information and discussion and credibility of recent years.

  74. Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    Deming is the only one claiming to have had such an email, and he can’t produce it. And he never said it was from Overpeck anyway.
    ——————–
    Well, except for his testimony under oath before Congress.

    And then we have Overpeck himself noting he is likely the one Deming is talking about.

    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1206628118.txt

    ————————

    The issue is, in any event, does Climate Science try to re-write history. They do it every day and the links proving such would be 100s and 100s of links long.

  75. Steven Mosher;
    Deming doesnt have the mail. We have nothing but hearsay.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Not quite. Hearsay runs along the lines of Bob says Tony said he saw John light the fire. That is hearsay evidence that John lit the fire. But if Bob says he saw John light the fire, then that is evidence, and not hearsay evidence. In this case, we have testimony by Deming in regard to the email he saw himself. Not an email he was told about by someone else.

    Is it flimsy? Sure. But just as flimsy is Overpeck’s excuse to not refute it. If he didn’t say it, all he need do is say so. Instead he worries about being incriminated by a forged email.

  76. Bill Illis says: December 8, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    “Well, except for his testimony under oath before Congress.
    And then we have Overpeck himself noting he is likely the one Deming is talking about.”

    There you go again. Deming did not mention Overpeck in Senate testimony.
    And Overpeck’s only info came from googling “Overpeck” + MWP. Myths. And he said he hadn’t done anything that it could be based on.

  77. davidmhoffer says: December 8, 2013 at 5:20 pm
    “But if Bob says he saw John light the fire, then that is evidence, and not hearsay evidence. In this case, we have testimony by Deming in regard to the email he saw himself.”

    But Bob says he saw X light the fire.

    “Is it flimsy? Sure. But just as flimsy is Overpeck’s excuse to not refute it. If he didn’t say it, all he need do is say so.”
    He says clearly: “It is bogus”

  78. However there is another reference in one of the climategate emails, where the author says, “we need to get rid of the putitative warm period”. I think it was in communication between Jones and Mann, but this is from memory. If you have the searchable file of climategate emails, it should be possible to find it.

  79. We don’t need the terms “MWP”, “LIA” and “Holocene Optimum” if we stick to the facts.

    Fact #1: Around 1,000 AD the English were growing wine grapes, and producing wines from the grapes, on the England/Scottish border that rivaled the wines produced in France. a sacrilege on par with mentioning the MWP. The English still can’t grow grapes in that region today. ergo it was warmer in 1,000 AD than today in Great Britain.

    Fact #2: Around the same time, the Vikings were settling and living in Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland. They had colonies there that thrived until about 1,400 AD when the return of colder climes lead to their demise. Does that mean we have to stop using the LIA myth as well?

    Fact #3: From about 1,400 AD to about 1,750 AD, Europe experienced numerous harsh, cold and damaging winters, years and decades. Crop failures, famines and plagues reduced the population of Europe by more than half.

    But this is AGW where Facts just get in the way and are swept under the rug. Damn, pesky, inconvenient facts!

    Bill

  80. Nick Stokes;
    He says clearly: “It is bogus”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No. He discusses publicly refuting it, but never does (to the best of my knowledge).

    He discusses not recollecting saying such a thing, and he considers that possibly he said something out of context. Then worries about being fingered by a “fake email”. If that comment wasn’t in the mix, I’d be on the side of you and Mosher. But that comment just doesn’t fit. Who, when accused of something they didn’t do, worries about their accuser coming up with forged evidence? Is that your reaction when someone drops by your office and wants to know if it is true that you said some specific thing to some specific person?

    The line about the fake email just sticks out like a sore thumb. So, what would prompt such a line in the first place? Well, NOW we’re descending into speculation that doesn’t even rise to the level of hearsay, but suppose for a moment…

    Suppose he did say such a thing. Suppose it is now out there, he figures he’s going to get raked over the coals by his colleagues for saying such a stupid thing. He worries that if he refutes it, and the email exists and comes back to haunt him, it is even worse. So, he comes up with an excuse to NOT refute it and a built in defense should the email surface anyway. He’s off the hook either way.

    Flimsy? Absolutely. Speculation? Absolutely. Without merit? Heh. The worrying about being fingered by a fake email is just not common everyday behaviour to these kinds of circumstances. It is very odd. When people react in very odd ways, there’s almost always a motivating factor as to what they are doing and why. I can’t say for certain that my theory is correct, I can’t even provide any additional evidence to substantiate it. But what I can say is the behaviour is suspicious, and suspicious behaviour merits additional investigation.

  81. @ 5:39 Nick Stokes, regarding David Hoffer’s comment says:

    “Is it flimsy? Sure. But just as flimsy is Overpeck’s excuse to not refute it. If he didn’t say it, all he need do is say so.”
    He says clearly: “It is bogus”

    Nick, your link is to an email from Phil Jones not Overpeck. Jones denies saying it, So what? Overpeck does not.

  82. Stokes and Mosher just want to remove clarity from the discussion, imho.
    It won’t matter if they are soundly rebutted, as the pursuit of attention, even negative, supersedes.

  83. Chad Jessup says:
    December 8, 2013 at 11:46 am

    I will say yes lope always run under the fence that is when you shoot them on the other side getting up. But I didn’t think we should let these clod’s though Taz is working hard as well as Judy to bridge the gap for all that is worth as they both still more or less to run with the mantra .But really should we let the worst of the worst get away with what they have done?

  84. Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    Theo Goodwin says: December 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    “Did he explain them to you? Can you explain them to us? Did he publish on the matter?”
    He did not explain them to me. I was not a participant in the email conversation.

    He did publish on the matter. They were discussing diagrams in Chap 6 of the AR5, of which he was a lead author. Fig 6.10 shows a NH recon with a MWP. Box 6.4 is devoted to the MWP. It concludes:
    “The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).”

    It is exactly what I wanted to read. There he is in print stating that there is evidence for the claim that a MWP exists. In other words, the hypothesis of a MWP is living and well. So, when he states that he wants to destroy a myth he really means that he wants to destroy a scientific hypothesis that he does not like. Censorship.

    The second sentence states simply that the evidence does not support a very strong conclusion, namely, that the MWP was as warm and as geographically extensive as those in the 20th Century. But the advocates of the MWP need not have claimed that they had conclusive evidence for such a strong conclusion; rather, they need only have claimed that they had some serious evidence that is worthy of developing. His answer amounts to a typical Strawman in which an outrageously strong claim is substituted for a modest and reasonable claim.

    Recall that his email refers to myths and misuse of terminology:

    “In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”

    His own writing refers to legitimate hypotheses about what might prove to be natural variability in temperatures:

    “The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006).”

    Again, his writing states simply and clearly his wish to deal a mortal blow to something that he calls myths and misuse of terms yet which he recognizes as genuine scientific hypotheses that require development but that have not been falsified. He is calling for censorship of perfectly legitimate science.

  85. Nick Stokes 2:56

    What we observe about the warmists e-mails is a very common behavior displayed by certain groups of people — people who have a high opinion of their own morality who want to commit what they know to be a crime — talking themselves into it — making sure all the others in the group are on-board. It is a very mealy mouthed way of doing business.

    It is important to re-brand the atrocity — “censorship” becomes “stopping misuse in the literature”. (Death camps become re-education centers.)

    “OUR JOB IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT IT (the MWP) WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DATA. IF THE DATA IS NOT CLEAR THEN WE HAVE TO BE NOT CLEAR”. The claim will be made that the proponents of the MVP are going far beyond the limits of the data while their detractors are acting as unbiased scientists (“I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WE MUST AVOID ANY BIAS OR PERCEPTION OF BIAS”) by merely pointing out that no conclusions AT ALL should have been reached — no clear conclusions can be reached therefore the existence of a MWP should not even have been proposed!!!!! What is really amusing about this is that the warmists have never demanded particularly high levels of proof for their own utterly inane ideas. They would place a level of proof on their opponents that they have never placed on themselves. Absolute hypocrisy! If such a level of proof had been applied to their own work the concept of “global warming” would be unknown to all.

    “THE IDEA OF A FIGURE IS THAT FIGURES CAN BE MORE COMPELLING AND CONNECT BETTER THAN TEXT.” Ah, man, the guy is practically down on his hands and knees begging for a hockey stick!

    Nick you are only fooling yourself.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  86. @John piccirilli says:
    December 8, 2013 at 12:52 pm
    “Tell me felix..where on mann’s hockey stick [graph] does he show
    The mwp? The meaning is clear by what peck says and by the actions
    Of ipcc.”

    John, see below.

    “The term “Hockey Stick” was coined by the former head of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern common to numerous proxy and model-based estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium. This pattern includes a long-term cooling trend from the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the “Little Ice Age” (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth (Figure 1). Numerous myths regarding the “hockey stick” can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites and other non-scientific venues.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/

  87. Louis Hooffstetter says: December 8, 2013 at 6:11 pm
    “Nick, your link is to an email from Phil Jones not Overpeck. Jones denies saying it, So what? Overpeck does not”

    Yes, he does. Line 100 in that link – “It is bogus” – Overpeck

    davidmhoffer says: December 8, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    “Who, when accused of something…”

    Who accused him?

  88. FWIW:

    “Over the past year, a number of studies have shown that 20th century Arctic and hemispheric warming are unprecedented relative to the last six centuries,” said Overpeck. “Now, high-resolution paleoclimate records stretching back 1200 years confirm that the so-called Medieval Warm Period did not exist in the form of a globally synchronous period as warm, or warmer, than today. Thus, recent record high hemispheric temperatures are probably unprecedented in at least 1200 years. In addition, our study of the Medieval Warm Period supports the likelihood that no known natural phenomenon can explain the record 20th century warmth. Twentieth Century global warming is a reality and should be taken seriously.”

    http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr98/dec98/noaa98-88.html

  89. I’ve never forgotten this Deming quote, for nearly 2 decades now, it happened well before Climategate and the Climategate emails. It was a statement made directly to Deming, and reported by Deming as such.

    It speaks to the climate that produced the hockey stick, and for a while these people DID get ride of the MWP. That is the key, there were high up people in the climate warming science establishment who desperately wanted to get rid of the MWP. It helps you understand Michael Mann — he became the young guy riding in on a white horse.

    Until, deus ex machina, Steve McIntyre arrived to help us all understand what happened.

  90. C’mon folks..read for context! You are too close to the carpet to see the pattern.

    Back off and observe the AGW General Staff (assembled at the urgent request of AGU newsletter editor, Judy Jacobs) to plot strategy to for a pre-emptive strike to discredit Soon & Baliunis “as soon as it comes out” by employing the big publicity gun:

    …the “AGU/EOS ‘publicity machine’ (which) will shout the message from rooftops everywhere.’

    “Containment” of the “putative” (or so called) MWP seems to be the strategy with General Mann in overall charge and Phil as deputy in his absence:

    ” I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”.. [Phil and I have one in review–not sure it is kosher to show that yet though..)

    Nice to see the Geneva Convention on weapons at least considered.

    http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1054736277.txt

  91. Did Deming specifically name Overpeck? No, but he left a few hints stronger than some above suppose. In his paperback collection of his essays (2011) are two of them. The first I list here, (Essay 21), gives the exact same phrase as the Senate Testimony, again in quotes. The second (Essay 16) names a 2009 NOAA report that he says has as one of its authors A PERSON he says IS the person who emailed him in 1995 (Overpeck is one of the 28 authors).

    ***** FIRST ESSAY **********
    From Black & White – Politically Incorrect Essays (2011) by David Deming, Essay 21 “Why I Deny Global Warming” (pg 52).

    “. . . . . When I testified before the US Senate in 2006, I stated that a major climate researcher told me in 1995 that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The existence and global nature of the Medieval Warm Period had been substantiated by literally hundreds of research articles published over decades. But it had to be erased from history for ideological reasons. A few years later the infamous “hockey stick” appeared. The “hockey stick” was a revisionist attempt to rewrite the temperature history of the last thousand years. It has been discredited as being deeply flawed. . . . . . ”

    ***** SECOND ESSAY *****
    From Black & White – Politically Incorrect Essays (2011) by David Deming, Essay 16 “Global Warming is a Fraud” (pg 33).

    “. . . . . Another cause of global warming hysteria is the infiltration of science by ideological zealots who place politics above truth. Earlier this month, the Obama administration issued a report that concluded global warming would have a number of deleterious effects on the US. In 1995, one of the lead authors of this report told me that we had to alter the historical temperature record by “getting rid” of the Medieval Warm Period. . . . . .”

    An online version (June 29, 2009) of this essay (Google title and Deming) leads to a “report” link “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” of June 2009 which indeed lists Jonathan T. Overpeck in the “Author Team” (about 28 total). Note this second essay is also more specific about intent.

  92. Bernie Hutchins says: December 8, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    “Did Deming specifically name Overpeck? No, but he left a few hints stronger than some above suppose.

    The second (Essay 16) names a 2009 NOAA report that he says has as one of its authors…”

    What’s all this about hints? If it really happened, why can’t he say who it was and produce the alleged email?

    But he doesn’t say “one of its authors”. He says “one of its lead authors”. And Overpeck, as one of 28, is definitely rank and file. There are three editors; O is not one.

  93. John says:

    “I’ve never forgotten this Deming quote, for nearly 2 decades now, it happened well before Climategate and the Climategate emails. It was a statement made directly to Deming, and reported by Deming as such.”

    I recall that quote too, John. And why would Deming lie about what was only some incidental testimony?

    Instead, look at Mann & his cronies: they refer to themselves as the “Hockey Team” [while scientific skeptics refer to them as the "Hokey Team"].

    Mann has consistently attempted to erase both the MWP and the LIA from the historical record. But there is ample evidence showiung that both existed as a global phenomena. Only deluded climate alarmists believe there was no LIA or MWP. They can be disregarded as being nuts.

    The whole “carbon” scare is based on the belief that CO2 ["carbon"] will cause runaway global warming. The fact is that CO2 has been steadily rising — but global temperatures have not followed:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

    The ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is busy debunking the belief systems of the Felix’s of this world.

    So who shoulod we believe? Felix? Or Planet Earth?

  94. Nick Stokes;
    davidmhoffer says: December 8, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    “Who, when accused of something…”
    Who accused him?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Huh? Wow. Seriously Nick? He asked his colleagues how to handle the accusation and worried that the accuser might produce an email substantiating the accusation and he did all this…what? Spontaneously?

  95. The significance of this thread is that from a scientific viewpoint the CAGW agenda is in such disarray that this blog and its readers have the time to disagree over a point that was made (or mismade) eight years ago. And like the man with 2 watches who never knows what time it is, I have an opinion on this subject and am not shopping for another one. Thanks Anthony; keep up the good work.

  96. I think that Stokes and Mosher are out on the very thin branches with their misdirecting pretzel logic.
    Demming clearly states in Senate testimony;
    “I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””
    Wegman was brutalized and by the establishment over trivial charges of plagiarism despite repeated citations when testifying before Congress. I would suspect that Demmings “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” still resides in the Congressional Record just as does Wegmans and Norths testimony. If Demming lied in that testimony, they would have gone after him much faster than they went after Wegman.
    Regardless of who emailed it, (tho Overpecks own statements implicate himself) the statement “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” was made by a climate scientist to Demming as testified before Congress or Demming committed perjury before the Senate. I find it difficult to believe after the treatment of Wegman, that the ‘team’ with all of their political and financial support from the government would let that stand for a moment. The only reason not to prosecute Demming to the full extent of the law would be that he was telling the truth.

  97. davidmhoffer says: December 8, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    “Nick Stokes;
    davidmhoffer says: December 8, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    “Who, when accused of something…”
    Who accused him?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Huh? Wow. Seriously Nick? He asked his colleagues how to handle the accusation and worried that the accuser might produce an email substantiating the accusation and he did all this…what? Spontaneously?”

    It’s a question. You said he was accused. Can you answer it?

    He said why he was asking his colleagues. ‘The email below recently came in and I googled “We have to get rid of the warm medieval period” and “Overpeck”‘ and found lots of talk about Deming.

    The email was from David Holland. But he didn’t make the accusation, just asked. It was just web rumor. Still is.

  98. Nick Stokes;
    It’s a question. You said he was accused. Can you answer it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I did no such thing. I asked who, when accused falsely, behaves like Overpeck did. My question, in context, is up thread for all to read.

  99. Nick Stokes says, December 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm, in part:

    “What’s all this about hints? If it really happened, why can’t he say who it was and produce the alleged email?”

    I agree 100% to the first of what you demand: I would prefer Deming said once and for all who it was. But I can certainly symphonize with Deming’s not being able to produce an email from 1995. I suspect that not many of us could.

    I don’t believe however that Deming “fabricated” the quote (to use Robert’s term). The Climategate email would have suggested that Overpeck might be hostile to the MWP, but Deming of course did not have that email (released 2009) for his 2006 Senate testimony. Some here have conflated the timing in this regard (not you Nick).

    Something was known prior to Climategate of course. In my own experience, the notion, that the 1995 email came from Overpeck, came to me first from Chris Horner’s book Red Hot Lies (2008), the epigram to Chapter 8:

    “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
    – University of Arizona professor and IPCC lead author Jonathan Overpeck in an e-mail to a colleague he assumed was on board.

    Where did that come from? Speaking as Horner does of “Red Hot” there is a saying about smoke and fire.

  100. claimsguy says:
    December 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    > What is the evidence that the MWP was global and not regional?

    Well, how much time do you have?

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    That leads to the “Project Overview” page which says in part:

    What is it?
    Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal distributions of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its purpose is to ultimately determine if the Medieval Warm Period (1) was or was not global in extent, (2) was less warm than, equally as warm as, or even warmer than the Current Warm Period, and (3) was longer or shorter than the Current Warm Period has been to date.

    Why is it?
    The project’s reason for being derives from the claim of many scientists — and essentially all of the world’s radical environmentalists — that earth’s near-surface air temperature over the last few decades was higher than it has been during any similar period of the past millennium or more. This claim is of utmost importance to these climate alarmists; for it allows them to further claim there is something unnatural about recent and possibly ongoing warming, which allows them to claim that the warming has its origins in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which allows them to claim that if humanity will abandon the burning of fossil fuels, we can slow and ultimately stop the warming of the modern era and thereby save the planet’s fragile ecosystems from being destroyed by catastrophic climate changes that they claim will otherwise drive a goodly percentage of earth’s plants and animals to extinction. Since these are serious contentions, we feel that their underlying basis must be rigorously tested with real-world data.

  101. claimsguy says:
    December 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    What is the evidence that the MWP was global and not regional?

    The evidence that it is regional is the same evidence that it is not global. Where is the evidence it was regional, only?

  102. dp says:
    December 8, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    claimsguy says:
    December 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm
    What is the evidence that the MWP was global and not regional?
    The evidence that it is regional is the same evidence that it is not global. Where is the evidence it was regional, only?
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    That is an excellent question. It prompts another. By what physical mechanism could giant swaths of the NH warm and that warmth be contained regionally? Did the laws of physics break down for a while?

    Which prompts an additional observation. If in fact there is evidence that the MWP was regional, then that same evidence suggests that kriging and other techniques to extrapolate temps from regions with known temps to regions with unknown temps is completely unreliable since we don’t know where (or when) the borders of the regional warming are.

  103. It shouldn’t be in quotation marks if it is not a quotation.
    He might have implied it, meant it, insinuated it or alluded to it.
    But he did not say it.
    No amount of obfuscating around the issue will change that.

  104. Kohl, it is still acceptable to use quotes IF paraphrasing accurately. Read the rules of grammar.
    However, this paraphrase is not done as well as it should be done to deserve quotes. It could be done better.

    What the author is doing is setting up a straw man, falsely implying that there is faulty data on the MWP in order to disqualify scientific interest in it.

  105. First, Moncton incorrectly attributes to Overpeck a statement that Overpeck specifically denied and no one ever claimed Overpeck made, then commenter Robert further muddies the waters by conflating the two, and finally, Anthony somehow misconstrues Overpeck’s subsequent statement “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”, when the operative word was clearly “misuse.”

    Not WUWT’s finest hour, even granting that Overpeck’s statement wasn’t real clear either (what did he mean by “warm period terms”, does he really think that the scientific literature contains myths – say it ain’t so! – and was he referring to the MWP or warming intervals in general?). But then his was a quick note among colleagues; he probably would’ve been more careful if he’d been writing for publication.

  106. This is being wrongly sourced to Deming’s Senate testimony. The earliest version is surely:

    Deming, David (2005) ‘Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear.’ Journal of Scientific Exploration 19(2): 247- 256

    ‘With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.’ pp248-49.

    Check it out at: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html
    Overpeck is not identified.
    The review of State of Fear was published in June 2005, but appeared on-line earlier in the year. It is not certain that it came after the Climategate e-mail being quoted, but note:
    1. That e-mail is not addressed to Deming.
    2. Deming states explicitly this occurred after publication of his 1995 article.
    3. It is hardly surprising he did not keep a copy of the e-mail. How many of you have archived your e-mails from 1995? AL Gore had only just invented the internet.

  107. SInce we are combatting a PR campaign in which innuendo, smears, ad hominem arguments, lies and manipulation are the weapons, paraphrasing, with or without quotation marks, is better avoided. Don’t hand the opponent a sword.

  108. Re Regional vs global MWP:

    It is worth going back to assess Mann’s publications ‘showing’ that the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was ‘cooler than the present’ (of course, he has to rename it the MCA, the Medieval Climate Anomoly, as otherwise the whole thing would be a little less Orwellian.)

    Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, Fenbiao Ni

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

    See Fig. 2. Reconstructed surface temperature pattern for MCA (950 to 1250 C.E.) and LIA (1400 to 1700 C.E.). Shown are the mean surface temperature anomaly (left) and associated relative weightings of various proxy records used (indicated by size of symbols) for the low-frequency component of the reconstruction (right). Anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean.

    Note Figure 2 – the top figures showing the temperature anomaly map of the world for the MCA (compared to the 1961 to 1990 period)…..and the weighted proxies on the right……
    Note all the blue (cooler than recent times) on that map. There is cooling shown across all of central Asia, the entire Indian ocean, the entire southern Atlantic, the area of the Eastern Pacific. Note these are all proxy-free areas. (Three proxies across central Asia, none in any of the remarkably cool oceans.

    However, warming is indicated (yellow, orange or red) in the immediate area of the vast majority of the proxies locations which are shown

    The whole conclusion is (of course) a modeled output …. which I think should have prompted someone to go back and check the model.

  109. If you read p. 28 of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, you will see he has made it quite clear that he is quoting from what Deming said and Montford goes on to say that the link to Overpeck as the original author was confirmed by Richard LIndzen.

  110. Monckton has reported, as a direct quote using “…”, a statement that he cannot prove was a direct quote made by the person he attributes it to. He is wrong to do so. The words should be presented as a paraphrase or as indirect speech the first time they are introduced. To do otherwise is misleading, whether intentionally or not.

    Anthony in turn sets angels dancing on the head of a pin while ignoring this simple fact.

    Neither is remotely helpful to what sceptics of the IPCC consensus wish to achieve. There are enough self-damning alarmist quotations available that can, and should, be brought to public attention as often as possible. Further quotation-laundering is not required.

  111. Steven Mosher says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Deming actually wrote me and backed away from his claim. But I misplaced the email.
    you buy that of course?

    This is pretty simple. When warmists claim they get death threats we demand to see the mail.
    Deming doesnt have the mail. We have nothing but hearsay. The monktopus is pretending
    that this is not hearsay. And none of you skeptics have the balls to call him on it. A real skeptic keeps his standards of evidence straight: we demand to see the mail when somebody whines about a death threat. we should demand to see the deming mail. If deming didnt keep the mail, then too fricking bad, all we have is hearsay. More importantly the climategate record is the better source than demings hearsay.

    Mmm … seems to me it’s a bit more complex than that.

    Deming said that Overpeck told him that Overpeck wanted to get rid of the MWP. Deming doesn’t have the email. However, his statement still exists.

    His claim is supported by what we know Overpeck did say, when he talked about the “supposed warm period terms and myths”. In Overpeck’s mind, he has obviously already gotten rid of the MWP and all the rest of the “supposed warm period terms”. To him, any story about any previous warm period is a “myth”. Given that mindset, it is totally in character that he would make such a statement to Deming.

    So … given the Mythbusters’ choices of “Confirmed”, “Busted”, or “Plausible”, I’d have to rate Deming’s account as Plausible.

    Finally, whatever it might be, Deming’s statement is not “hearsay”. If Alice says that she heard Bob threaten Charlie, that is not “hearsay” despite the fact that there is no written or other record of what Bob said. It’s just Alice’s witness testimony, which is all that Deming’s story is.

    Thanks as always, your comments always make me think.

    w.

  112. Messenger says: If you read p. 28 of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, you will see he has made it quite clear that he is quoting from what Deming said and Montford goes on to say that the link to Overpeck as the original author was confirmed by Richard LIndzen.

    See Frank O’Dwyer’s review of The Hockey Stick Illusion:

    On p28 Montford refers to an email that Deming says he received from a leading climate science figure, which he claims to have said “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. [...]

    Montford then goes on say that Richard Lindzen confirmed “Internet rumours” that the author of the email to Deming was Overpeck. This initially seemed pretty damning to me, as it made it seem that Lindzen was an independent witness—and after all, if he could corroborate the authorship, that also seemed to corroborate the existence of the email itself and its content.

    But then I thought, how did Lindzen know? Was he cc’d on the email? Did he receive a similar email or did someone say the same thing to him? So I checked the Lindzen paper cited by Montford.

    Lindzen’s paper does say that the author was Overpeck, however the only reference he gives in support of this is the same one that Montford gives—the same paper which Montford just stated is silent about the email’s authorship. So, far being an independent witness to events, both Lindzen’s and Montford’s claims stand on the same single piece of evidence: Deming’s original piece. And far from “confirming Internet rumours”, Lindzen is simply repeating them.

  113. Poems of Our Climate says: December 8, 2013 at 11:22 pm
    “Kohl, it is still acceptable to use quotes IF paraphrasing accurately. Read the rules of grammar.”

    I was unable to find rules of grammar that support use of quotation marked when paraphrasing.
    Can you provide one? Thanks.

  114. Willis Eschenbach says: December 9, 2013 at 1:12 am
    “Deming said that Overpeck told him that Overpeck wanted to get rid of the MWP. Deming doesn’t have the email. However, his statement still exists.”

    No, Deming did not mention Overpeck, at least in public statements.

    Aynsley Kellow says: December 9, 2013 at 12:20 am
    “3. It is hardly surprising he did not keep a copy of the e-mail. How many of you have archived your e-mails from 1995?”

    True. But how many can quote accurately from 1995 emails that haven’t been retained (or even 2005)?

  115. Hyperbole is a regular device of climate alarmists. It is very tempting to fight fire with fire. However, it is essential for high profile CAGW questioners to maintain the scientific and rational high ground. This example demonstrates a danger of over interpretation, or exaggeration in what is seen as simply a case of bolstering a “denier” agenda. From a warmist perspective the interpretation of Overpeck’s remarks is clearly quite different to the explanation provided in this article. Surely better to address the issue by highlighting all the evidence for previous warm periods, and the less than unique nature of recent ones?

  116. Here is a quote from David Deming’s statement to the US Senate:

    Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

    This is an extremely important point. All the recent hockey-stick palaeo-reconstructions recently published by the team, e.g. Mann, Marcott, Miller, do exactly this, present their paper as if it is the first palaeo-reconstruction ever done. As if they themselves have in fact invented the whole concept of the palaeo reconstruction of climate. The ignorance of and silence about all previous climate palaeo-reconstruction is total in these papers.

    This is flagrant and disgraceful disregard of normal scientific practice and convention. The bogus hockey-stick itself and the practice and culture of the climate community in this regard shouts loud and clear “we have to get rid of climate history”.

    By contrast it is our intention to “deal a mortal blow to the fabrication of climate history and the misuse of climate models and atmospheric radiative physics”.

  117. Nick Stokes: Of course he might have a copy! But I think it highly unlikely that he was quoting the Climategate e-mail earlier in 2005 when he was not even an a addressee. It may be that we only have his testimony under oath.

  118. Stokes,

    Are you sure of what you’re saying? My recall is that in an interview he that it may have been an Overpeck.

  119. What matters to me is what they did, not what they said. Actions speak louder than words. It is one thing to say it might be a good thing to alter the public record, and might have a good effect of some sort. You don’t go to jail for that. It is when you actually alter the public record that the specter of people pressing charges and jail rears its head.

    There are certain people who deserve their day in court, if not jail.

  120. davidmhoffer says:
    December 8, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    dp says:
    December 8, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    claimsguy says:
    December 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm
    What is the evidence that the MWP was global and not regional?
    The evidence that it is regional is the same evidence that it is not global. Where is the evidence it was regional, only?
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    That is an excellent question. It prompts another. By what physical mechanism could giant swaths of the NH warm and that warmth be contained regionally? Did the laws of physics break down for a while?
    ==========================================================

    The evidence is firstly at the seasonal noise level, with positive AO/NAO states the Arctic cools while the mid latitudes warm. Secondly MWP studies from locations away from the Arctic:

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    quote the warm period from early as 600 AD to 1000 AD, which was clearly during a much cooler period for Greenland:

    But Arctic amplification is a political sacred cow within the The Team, so very hard to challenge internally.

  121. This whole post seems to be about:

    ‘ However, in 1995 Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, an IPCC scientist, wrote an email to Dr. David Deming to say, “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.” ‘

    as written by Geoffrey Monkton in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/intelligence-and-the-hockey-stick/#comment-1495155, specifically whether he was justified and technically correct in his statement.

    I think he was justified, but whether he quoted correctly is a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (though I understand why it needs to be clarified.)

    Poems of Our Climate says:
    December 8, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Kohl, it is still acceptable to use quotes IF paraphrasing accurately. Read the rules of grammar.
    ————–
    The only rule I am familiar with is the one found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark:
    “Quotation marks are not used for paraphrased speech. This is because a paraphrase is not a direct quote, and in the course of any composition, it is important to document when one is using a quotation versus when one is using a paraphrased idea, which could be open to interpretation.”

    This seems a sensible rule. If you could perhaps point me to a better authority I would be grateful, since grammar is not my field. I also wonder how it could have been written otherwise to get the (valid) point accross.

    I am grateful for the effort of Lord Monckton at re-exposing the techniques used by the IPCC and I think all the “sound and fury” on this point by his critics have an excellent Streisand effect, since a lot of people would prefer to forget climategate ever happened.

  122. thisisnotgoodtogo says: December 9, 2013 at 3:11 am
    “Are you sure of what you’re saying? My recall is that in an interview he that it may have been an Overpeck.”

    A public statement? But anyway, that doesn’t sound like he remembers very well. Just one?

  123. Climatology is not the only discipline that studies the past. Fortuntately there is history and archaeeology and from there we have a flood of factual proof regarding the warm periods of the past. The arrogance displayed is that by silencing any reference to the MWP in climatology it will erase it from all disciplines.

  124. Methinks that “Peck” doth incriminate himself….

    Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually
    > > ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can
    > > imagine that it could take on a life of it’s own
    > > and that I might want to deal with it now, rather
    > > than later. I could – as the person below
    > > suggests – make a quick statement on a web site
    > > that the attribution to me is false, but I
    > > suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
    > > a fake email. I would then say it’s fake. Or just
    > > ignore? Or something else?
    > >
    > > I googled Deeming, and from the first page of
    > > hits got the sense that he’s not your average
    > > university professor… to put it lightly.
    > >
    > > Again, thanks for any advice – I’d really like
    > > this to not blow up into something that creates
    > > grief for me, the IPCC, or the community. It is
    > > bogus.

  125. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/#comment-1462792

    milodonharlani says: October 31, 2013 at 11:50 am
    The evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was global, & that it, the Roman & Minoan WPs & the Holocene Climatic Optimum, or whatever the latest fashion in its nomenclature might be, plus the deglaciation phase prior to it, were also warmer than now has been abundant & growing since Lamb, at least, ie 50 years. The LIA & previous cold periods were also global.
    Which is why Mann needed fraudulent “tricks” & apparently intentionally inept statistical techniques or lack thereof to try to show recent warming to be special & scary.

    **********

    Agreed Milon.

    We knew that Piltdown was wrong at the time his papers were published (MBH98, etc.).

    I published the following article in E&E in early 2005, in defence of several legitimate climate scientists.

    Full article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/#comment-811913

    Natural climate variability trumps global warming extremism.

    Regards, Allan

    Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
    The global warming debate heats up
    Allan M.R. MacRae
    [Excerpt]

    But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.

    Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature. Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”

    Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.

    Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.

    In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.

    In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.

    In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.

    *************

  126. Re. Theo Goodwin says:
    December 8, 2013 at 6:42 pm
    ==========================================
    Bingo! Jonathan Overpeck calls the historic warming “supposed” and a “myth” thus showing intent to “mortally” or kill the “MYTH” of “warming” . What myth is that? Well he goes on to say the “myth” in the LITERATURE!! Damm, the hubris of these arrogant “scientist”; calling the work of hundreds of scientist about the earths history of warming a myth, and later defending the Mannian hockey stick. (The fact that he later, in a scientific paper, admits that the MWP is a valid hypothesis, only makes Theo Goodwin’s point about censorship, which did happen, “changing the way peer review works” and all that, crystal clear.)

    Nick, Felix and Mosher, in the words of a CAGW proponent about this very subject, “You are defending the indefensible.”

  127. A distant secondary point is that Mosher calling congressional testimony of an eye witness “hearsay” is very ignorant. Monckton is quoting that testimony and it is not hearsay! But as others have said, the point is moot regardless. Overpeck clearly called the “literature” precedent to the hockey stick a “myth” of “supposed warming” which needed to be killed. (The meaning is exactly as Monckton stated)

    The fact that Overpeck later, in a scientific paper, admitted the MWP was not a myth, precisely shows how Overpeck, like many CAGW proponents, are politicians first, and only use science as a secondary means to support their politics.

  128. This is the passage that matters.

    I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.

    The reading is pretty clear. Overpeck genuinely believes that past warm periods are misused as analogs to current warming, and it is this “misuse” that he would like to despatch, not “warm periods”, the existence of which which he acknowledges (2nd sentence). There is nothing inherently insidious or mendacious in his comments.

    Deming may or may not have recalled the exact wording of the email he received from persons as yet unverified. There’s no need to speculate on mendaciousness on his part either, just to acknowledge that the only verifiable remarks we have are from the email quoted in the OP.

    MBH99 is now 14 years old. Lamb’s “cartoon” graph with the big MWP hump in the first IPCC report is nearly 50 years old. It is madness to think that this early study, with the barest coverage of all the millenial reconstructions (based on CET temps), is some kind of gold standard to which later work should be held. Like holding modern astronomy is bogus because it has differences with Copernican theory. Science has moved on. So should we.

    There is a good web page that delves into some myths about Lamb’s millennial reconstruction, and notes some of his later work on the MWP period here.

  129. Barry, a long post to ignore the word “supposed”, before warm and the word “myth” referring to the literature, and the words “mortal blow” referring to the “myth” of a supposedly warmer world Also you ignore a great deal of scientific work before Lamb, and after. Really I am afraid your words were in vain. http://www.co2science.org/

  130. The paraphrase is an accurate summation, but care must be taken regarding using it as a direct quote — which it is not.

  131. RE:Ulric Lyons says:
    December 9, 2013 at 3:37 am
    “…quote the warm period from early as 600 AD to 1000 AD, which was clearly during a much cooler period for Greenland:
    http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg …”

    Using the graph you link to, it looks like Greenland was experiencing some serious cold 600 AD, but began rapid warming after that, and by roughly 750 AD had passed our current temperatures. That actually fits in with the history of when the Vikings first began raiding, and the start of Norse expansion. by 1000 AD Greenland had experienced 250 years of weather warmer than it currently is, and likely had thickets of low, brushy trees in places where it is now barren.

    Sorry if I sound nit-picky, but you might want to fine tune your statement. (Leave no loopholes.)

  132. Barry, you ignore…”supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.” “Supposed”, IE NOT REAL warm periods, but MYTHS in the LITERATURE!

    The only way he can kill any use, by the skeptics, of these myths in the literature, is to remove them from the literature.

    It is not complicated unless one is blinded by an agenda.

  133. Poems of Our Climate says:
    December 8, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Kohl, it is still acceptable to use quotes IF paraphrasing accurately. Read the rules of grammar.

    The NY Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style And Usage (838 pages long), p. 278, says:

    “Quotation marks are not to be used with an indirect quotation or with a paraphrase of a person’s actual words.”

    IIRC, other style guides were even more emphatic about this matter. (It makes the user of such marks more vulnerable to a libel suit., for one thing.)

    negrum says:
    December 9, 2013 at 4:01 am

    The only rule I am familiar with is the one found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark:
    “Quotation marks are not used for paraphrased speech. This is because a paraphrase is not a direct quote, and in the course of any composition, it is important to document when one is using a quotation versus when one is using a paraphrased idea, which could be open to interpretation.”

    This seems a sensible rule. If you could perhaps point me to a better authority I would be grateful, since grammar is not my field. I also wonder how it could have been written otherwise to get the (valid) point across.

    What we need is a new punctuation mark, or variant or combination thereof, to flag a paraphrase.

  134. ‘Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths…

    So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort…

    Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it.’

    It would be interesting what his advice was in the previous e-mail. Now, maybe I’m reading into this but what exactly does that last sentence, “Thanks for doing this…if you have a cool figure idea…’, mean? Is a figure idea a graph. Is Overpeck giving his cohorts a wink and a nod?

  135. ***
    Steven Mosher says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    This is pretty simple. When warmists claim they get death threats we demand to see the mail.
    Deming doesnt have the mail. We have nothing but hearsay. The monktopus is pretending
    that this is not hearsay. And none of you skeptics have the balls to call him on it. A real skeptic keeps his standards of evidence straight

    ***

    Don’t care what was said or not. Care about what was done. Heard about the hockey-shtick fiasco (rhetorical)?

  136. NIck Stokes

    ”A public statement? But anyway, that doesn’t sound like he remembers very well. Just one?”

    He already said he doesn’t remember very well.

  137. The discussion in this thread about paraphrasing and quoting involves some issues that are quite impossible and others that just don’t matter very much.

    It began with Lord Monckton writing in the thread just previous to this “We have to abolish the medieval warm period” while famously Deming wrote in his 2006 U.S. Senate testimony “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” This substitution of “abolish” for “get rid of” appears inadvertent and is not important. The quote is in the Senate record.

    On the thread above, “Robert” describes Monckton’s rendition as a “fabrication” (by Monckton?), apparently supposing that the source is from Climategate emails, in particular Overpeck writing: “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.” Apparently Robert was NOT aware of Deming’s 2006 Senate version as the obvious source.

    Nor could we suppose that Deming’s 2006 Senate version could have come as a paraphrase of the 2005 Climategate email because Deming could not have seen the 2005 emails until they were released in 2009 when we all got them.

    This leaves the question as to whether Deming in 2006 (or in previous less well documented instances) was in fact quoting the email from Overpeck exactly or was in fact paraphrasing what he remembered Overpack writing. We don’t know. This seems to me to not be that important.

    What is important is that Deming said in 2006 that he received an email of a certain essence. In view of the 2005 “pillow talk” among the IPCC team we have support for the notion that Overpeck would have said such a thing. It is also quite plausible that Overpeck was NOT advocating something as brazen as an eraser of the MWP, but rather a “better graphic” to use in their report.

    It seems to me that the scenario of a wish on the part of Overpeck and company for a MWP-free history transcends any issues of the use of paraphrases and quotation marks.

  138. Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    . “warm period” is an adjectival phrase. He wants to stop misuse of terms…

    Bollocks! You’re just prancing around. The primary adjective is “supposed”. He wants to stop use of the terms altogether.

  139. We can see Overpeck anxious to abolish thought of anything other than anthropogenic causes for warming since the late 1800′s, too.

    He said @ 2009 that it was just IMPOSSIBLE that changes in natural variation or the sun, were drivers of the change in temperature.

    Now he gives his agreement with Trenberth on the sun and the budget, in order to support anything that tackles “The Pause”.

  140. Tom J wrote,

    It would be interesting what his advice was in the previous e-mail.

    It might be this one.

    cc: Eystein Jansen
    date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:39:36 -0700
    from: Jonathan Overpeck
    subject: Section 6.2.2 update
    to: Valerie Masson-Delmotte , joos , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxx

    Hi all you beloved fans of section 6.2.2 – the section that refuses to go away!

    In our latest communication, Eystein decided that he’d reoutline the
    section and thus see what was possible. Stand by for input from him
    before doing more on this section.

    Thanks, Peck

  141. Caleb says:
    December 9, 2013 at 6:32 am
    “Using the graph you link to, it looks like Greenland was experiencing some serious cold 600 AD, but began rapid warming after that, and by roughly 750 AD had passed our current temperatures. That actually fits in with the history of when the Vikings first began raiding, and the start of Norse expansion. by 1000 AD Greenland had experienced 250 years of weather warmer than it currently is, and likely had thickets of low, brushy trees in places where it is now barren.

    Sorry if I sound nit-picky, but you might want to fine tune your statement. (Leave no loopholes.)”

    I suggest you get a ruler out and zoom in and measure that the cold bottoms out at around 800 AD:

    Norse settlements in Greenland started in the late 10th century.

  142. Maybe Gleick sent the “fake” email to Deming. He has a history of that sort of thing.

    “However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion . . .” If only that standard was held to the rest of Climate Science, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

  143. Slacko says:
    December 9, 2013 at 8:49 am

    Nick Stokes says:
    December 8, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    . “warm period” is an adjectival phrase. He wants to stop misuse of terms…

    Bollocks! You’re just prancing around. The primary adjective is “supposed”. He wants to stop use of the terms altogether.

    I think Nick Stokes is right on this. What is clear is that Overpeck is convinced that recent warming was totally “unlike” earlier events. Just how he attains this conviction is not explained because he assumes shared knowledge with his correspondent. He is not denying either MWP or the HTM, but he wants them less emphasized because of the emphasis placed upon them by sceptics.

    What is more revealing though is the the CG email which reveals that he doesn’t think he would have used those words “in that context.” He apparently does not consider it unthinkable that he might indeed have used the “get rid of” phrase in another. That is astonishing in itself.

  144. its worth remembering that could have been an MWP and still retain AGW as a valid idea .
    The ‘need ‘ to lose the MWP was not because the science support this idea , but because they knew that without the ‘unprecedented ‘ claim they had a much harder time selling AGW , because in the end the science on this is very far from ‘settled ‘ Like much in climate ‘science’ , such as the missing heat , it is political ‘need ‘ which is the driving force not data nor facts .

  145. Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are:

    “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

    It is obvious that Overpeck is saying he would like to deal a mortal blow to the sceptics misuse of the MWP in the literature.

    Time for a reality check…http://postimg.org/image/xk46zv29l/

  146. I think Nick Stokes is right on this. What is clear is that Overpeck is convinced that recent warming was totally “unlike” earlier events.

    Here’s a key difference between the two versions, in how we interpret them:
    Paraphrase of original: “I want to stop the misuse of the regional, not-so-significant warming periods such as the MWP in science communication”.
    Monckton’s paraphrase: “I want to abolish the MWP, and actual period where the Earth was warmer.”

    You might disagree with Overpeck, but he clearly is talking about trying to move back towards the data (as he sees it), and away from distortion of the data. Monckton’s paraphrase makes it seem like the opposite, like Overpeck is trying to distort the data.

    Look, the Overpeck quote is only 31 words. If you actually care about being on the honest and forthright side, you can just quote Overpeck directly, rather than paraphrasing him, which will inevitably impose your interpretation bias on his words. Let people decide for themselves how to interpret him; don’t put words in his mouth.
    The quote seems to be interpreted a number of different ways already, so paraphrasing him doesn’t seem reliable. I’m with Nick and the others who think that Overpeck’s emphasis on “misuse” is pretty important; it shows that Overpeck is not trying to distort the data, but get back to it.

  147. Forget the Medieval Warm Period.

    “Alberta Canada Sees Avalanche Of New Record Lows … “Glacial Temperatures” … Edmonton Sees -39°C! ”

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/09/alberta-canada-sees-avalanche-of-new-record-lows-glacial-temperatures-edmonton-sees-39c/

    “NSIDC “Prepared To Make Public” New All-Time Record Low For Earth, Recorded In Antarctica: Minus 91.2°C!”

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/09/nsidc-prepared-to-make-public-new-all-time-record-low-for-earth-recorded-in-antarctica-minus-91-2c/

  148. Jonathan Overpeck, 2005:
    “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”

    David Deming, 2006:
    “In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. (…) I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””

    Monckton, 2013:
    “However, in 1995 Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, an IPCC scientist, wrote an email to Dr. David Deming to say, “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.””

    Anthony Watts, 2013:
    “As to this being a fabrication (as Robert claims), no, it’s a summation or a paraphrase of a long quote, something that happens a lot in history. Monckton and Montford aren’t specifically at fault in this,..”

    Apparently allowed paraphrasing using quotation marks:
    Jimbo, at December 9, 2013 at 1:03 pm said: “Look! Squirrel!”

  149. I hereby revoke my claim that paraphrasing is okay with quotes. Thanks fellers, for the heads up. What I was thinking was: it is perfectly acceptable to paraphrase if dead accurate. The quotes don’t strengthen a paraphrase anyway. Best to simply say what the person is trying to say without exaggeration or oversimplification.

  150. @Poems of Our Climate

    Cheers! (and you can quote that literally! Just do not fabricate any quote I didn’t say! I’ll paraphrase stuff you said and make a quote of it when you don’t!) ;)

  151. From the response by the authors, about Overpecks suggestions, they too took the meaning that Monckton took.
    It’s funny that Stokes et all think that Overpeck he would have to speak explicitly of doing wrong without cloaking it at all in plausibly deniable words in order to say what he wanted to be produced.
    The emails show the smarter ones and even Jones talking in cloaked manner when discussing clearly improper actions.
    How to respond to McIntyres? Suggest calling them lazy and so on. That was when they actually felt threatened. But in conversation, it was cloaked so that the smears are as if actually believed, rather than that they were facing a fearsome prospect who they really just wanted to “GET RID OF”.

  152. Steven Mosher says: December 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    ……Deming doesn’t have the mail. We have nothing but hearsay. (Monckton) is pretending
    that this is not hearsay. And none of you skeptics have the balls to call him on it. A real skeptic keeps his standards of evidence straight: we demand to see the mail. ……. we should demand to see the Deming mail. If Deming didn’t keep the mail …… all we have is hearsay.

    In my opinion, Mosher is correct in noting this as hearsay.

    And quite incorrect in saying (with his usual flippant, holier (smarter?) than thou style) that no skeptics in here are calling it.
    Many have done so, that is why there is a debate going on.

  153. Barry, you ignore…”supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.” “Supposed”, IE NOT REAL warm periods, but MYTHS in the LITERATURE!

    No, I mulled over that. The grammar is bad and it can be interpreted a number of ways. What is being ignored by everyone is the rest of the email, which clears it up.

    “The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”

    The grammar is still not perfect, but it’s clear he’s acknowledging previous warm periods exist, and saying that their use as analogs for the current warm period is “pure rubbish”.

    It’s clear he acknowledges previous warm periods in the next paragraph, too.

    “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.

    If HTM is “another” warm period, then the previous paragraph was pointing them out, not dismissing them. Otherwise the word “another” makes no sense. And he’s clearly acknowledging HTM as a warm period.

    As his published work before and after the quote directly acknowledges the MWP (eg, How unprecedented is recent Arctic warming: A look back to the Medieval Warm Period – Overpeck (1998)) I conclude that he is trying to dismiss not his own work, but what he views as misrepresentations of paleoclimate.

    Only way I can see of interpreting the sentence your way is if you completely remove the context of his publications and ignore the other comments he makes in the email. And that may be how the false quote got attached to Overpeck in the first place, if that was indeed who Deming was referring to.

  154. markx,

    yes, Mosher has overlooked skeptics upthread questioning the interpretation. But he may have been referring to the broad agreement amongst skeptics on this quote that existed before this article.

  155. In my post of December 9, 2013 at 5:12 am it is clear that there was a widespread effort in the warmist camp to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

    There is no need to argue the fine points of the wording of Overpeck’s email. That entire argument is just specious nonsense – Overpeck’s objective was and is clear.

    The effort to discredit the global reality of the MWP was concerted and widespread and was deliberately done to bolster the credibility of the false MBH98 (etc.) hockey stick papers, which we knew were total crap when they were written.

  156. MBH98 was in fact used to abolish the MWP. Sheesh, did people forget TAR?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm

    Mann, Mann, Mann……

    And wiped out hundreds of previous research papers indicating a clearly warmer period ~1000 years ago globally, just as Overpeck and his ilk planned to do.

    Today there are reams of new papers verifying a MWP, not only in the NH, but globally.

  157. Mosher hates WUWT so much that he even tries to cover for the guilty…and he knows they were guilty of trying to get rid of McIntyre through illicit means. Get rid of possible respect he might glean, get rid of his criticisms, get rid of him. Part and parcel of the same effort by the same people.
    ( it appears loyalty is a bad word for Mosher)
    He fancies himself rubbing shoulders more with the Clintons than with the plain people.

  158. Allan MacRae says: December 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm
    “The effort to discredit the global reality of the MWP was concerted and widespread and was deliberately done to bolster the credibility of the false MBH98 (etc.)”

    David Rodale says: December 9, 2013 at 6:15 pm
    “MBH98 was in fact used to abolish the MWP.”

    Nonsense, of course. But it’s true that MBH98 showed no MWP in the last 600 years. The MWP has moved around a bit, but I don’t think anyone now claims it lasted much beyond 1400. So Mann was right.

  159. dbstealey says: December 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    “Nick, you do not know what you’re talking about. MBH98 did not go back to the MWP.”

    dbs, you do not read. Look again at the quotes I was responding to.

  160. The actual words used are not so important. A desire was expressed – The “Hockey Stick” was produced, and presto – the Medieval Warm Period was got rid of. Surely this is what happened, despite the argument and all the niminy-piminy mincing around which exact words were said by whom. People made things up and the World was the loser, both in terms of Science and Financially. The Lost Years of Gibberish and Nonsense can never be returned, The Wasted Time Debating Balderdash is what irks me the most.

  161. “Nonsense, of course. But it’s true that MBH98 showed no MWP in the last 600 years. The MWP has moved around a bit, but I don’t think anyone now claims it lasted much beyond 1400. So Mann was right.”
    Non sequitur, Nick.

  162. Even WA says

    “Removal of the Gaspe record from the MBH reconstruction during the early 15th century
    when proxy PC summaries are used, as mentioned in MM05b, represents a potentially useful
    adjustment of the original MBH results. With this correction, the adjustment of the MBH time
    series over 1400–1449 averages ∼+0.05–0.10◦, depending on the centering convention used
    for the proxy PC calculations, as shown by the blue curve in Figure 3. This adjustment yields
    a maximum high excursion of 0.21–0.26◦ over the entire 15th century, which is similar to the mean of mid-20th century temperatures, but ∼0.6◦ below late-20th century”

  163. thisisnotgoodtogo says: December 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    “…So Mann was right.”
    Non sequitur, Nick.

    Not at all. Consider a quote I was replying to:
    “MBH98 was in fact used to abolish the MWP.”
    MBH98 showed no MWP, and was criticised for that. But it seems to be now agreed that there was indeed no MWP post 1400. So MBH98 didn’t abolish it; it wasn’t there.

  164. “MBH98 showed no MWP, and was criticised for that. But it seems to be now agreed that there was indeed no MWP post 1400. So MBH98 didn’t abolish it; it wasn’t there.”

    It doesn’t matter what you were replying to, if you know better than what you replied with.

  165. ” I don’t think anyone now claims it lasted much beyond 1400. ”

    ” ‘Much’ beyond”. “Much” being key to your subterfuge.

  166. “You might disagree with Overpeck, but he clearly is talking about trying to move back towards the data (as he sees it), and away from distortion of the data. Monckton’s paraphrase makes it seem like the opposite, like Overpeck is trying to distort the data.”
    ——————————————
    Rubbish ““I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too.”

    The sentence clearly states, in order, sceptics misuse of supposed (1.accepted as true but doubtful: accepted, at least by some, as correct, real, or having a quality, but on slender or uncertain evidence; Synonyms: · imaginary · made-up · fictional · invented) warm period terms and myths (Synonyms: legend · fable · saga · fairy story · fairy tale) in the literature.

    So an accurate paraphrase is…”I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of imaginary · made-up · fictional · invented warm period terms and fairy tales in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too.”

    It is English, and really pretty straightforward. The use of “myth” precludes any other interpretation of “supposed”. The actions of the hockey team are in perfect sync with the Overpeck exact phrase, as well as the paraphrase by Monckton. What Overpeck desires to do is make the MWP into a myth of supposed warm periods, and so preclude any attempt by sceptics to say that the current warming falls within past natural behavior of climate. Nick and Mosh are wrong, Monckton is correct. If the MWP is real, and global, then the null hypothesis is still valid. Te best way to “mortally wound” the sceptics case, is by making the MWP a made up fictional invented myth, which is exactly, precisely and with redundancy what Overpeck called it.

    I rest the case.

  167. Barry quotes..”It’s clear he acknowledges previous warm periods in the next paragraph, too.
    “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.”

    Sorry, he already called the literatre (not the sceptics use of it) a made up myth. now he backtracks and get zero points here. Why, because the resolution of the proxy regressions is, at best 100 years or greater, so of course shorter periods could well be hidden in the proxy regressions, and not show up. (His entire quotes structure, like much of the CAGW proponents science, is not logical, and a desperate attempt to argue on all sides, as long as they perpetuate the “myth” of “supposed” CAGW.

    Now notice I have called CAGW a made up fable, just as Overpeck called the MWP the same. I am clear, as was Overpeck. The fact that at times I also argue strictly on a scientific basis, does not mean I accept CAGW as anything but a fable and a myth. Overpeck’s use of the words supposed, and myth, applied NOT to sceptics, but to the MWP literature.

  168. Realclimate on PCA decentering

    “Contrary to MM’s assertions, the use of non-centered PCA is well-established in the statistical literature, and in some cases is shown to give superior results to standard, centered PCA. See for example page 3 (middle paragraph) of this review. For specific applications of non-centered PCA to climate data, consider this presentation provided by statistical climatologist Ian Jolliffe who specializes in applications of PCA in the atmospheric sciences, having written a widely used text book on PCA. In his presentation, Jollife explains that non-centered PCA is appropriate when the reference means are chosen to have some a priori meaningful interpretation for the problem at hand. ”

    Ian Joliffe himself, shortened message
    ” …. I’d be grateful if my comments could be displayed wherever it is appropriate for them to appear.
    … my views have been misrepresented, and I would therefore like to correct any wrong impression that has been given.
    … In reacting to Wegman’s criticism of ‘decentred’ PCA, the author says that Wegman is ‘just plain wrong’ and goes on to say ‘You shouldn’t just take my word for it, but you *should* take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA, author of a seminal book on the subject. He takes an interesting look at the centering issue in this presentation.’ It is flattering to be recognised as a world expert….
    … However there is a strong implication that I have endorsed ‘decentred PCA’. This is ‘just plain wrong’.

    …certainly does not endorse decentred PCA. Indeed I had not understood what MBH had done until a few months ago.

    …An argument I’ve seen is that the standard PCA and decentred PCA are simply different ways of describing/decomposing the data, so decentring is OK. But equally, if both are OK, why be perverse and choose the technique whose results are hard to interpret?

    …. it’s arguable whether you should be using any type of PCA.

    …I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. .

    Ian Jolliffe”

    Ian Jollife on the decentered PCA.

    “Apologies if this is not the correct place to make these comments. I am a complete newcomer to this largely anonymous mode of communication. I’d be grateful if my comments could be displayed wherever it is appropriate for them to appear.

    It has recently come to my notice that on the following website, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/pca-part-4-non-centered-hockey-sticks/ .. , my views have been misrepresented, and I would therefore like to correct any wrong impression that has been given.

    An apology from the person who wrote the page would be nice.

    In reacting to Wegman’s criticism of ‘decentred’ PCA, the author says that Wegman is ‘just plain wrong’ and goes on to say ‘You shouldn’t just take my word for it, but you *should* take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA, author of a seminal book on the subject. He takes an interesting look at the centering issue in this presentation.’ It is flattering to be recognised as a world expert, and I’d like to think that the final sentence is true, though only ‘toy’ examples were given. However there is a strong implication that I have endorsed ‘decentred PCA’. This is ‘just plain wrong’.

    The link to the presentation fails, as I changed my affiliation 18 months ago, and the website where the talk lived was closed down. The talk, although no longer very recent – it was given at 9IMSC in 2004 – is still accessible as talk 6 at http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/itj201/RecentTalks.html
    It certainly does not endorse decentred PCA. Indeed I had not understood what MBH had done until a few months ago. Furthermore, the talk is distinctly cool about anything other than the usual column-centred version of PCA. It gives situations where uncentred or doubly-centred versions might conceivably be of use, but especially for uncentred analyses, these are fairly restricted special cases. It is said that for all these different centrings ‘it’s less clear what we are optimising and how to interpret the results’.

    I can’t claim to have read more than a tiny fraction of the vast amount written on the controversy surrounding decentred PCA (life is too short), but from what I’ve seen, this quote is entirely appropriate for that technique. There are an awful lot of red herrings, and a fair amount of bluster, out there in the discussion I’ve seen, but my main concern is that I don’t know how to interpret the results when such a strange centring is used? Does anyone? What are you optimising? A peculiar mixture of means and variances? An argument I’ve seen is that the standard PCA and decentred PCA are simply different ways of describing/decomposing the data, so decentring is OK. But equally, if both are OK, why be perverse and choose the technique whose results are hard to interpret? Of course, given that the data appear to be non-stationary, it’s arguable whether you should be using any type of PCA.

    I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally. It is possible that there are good reasons for decentred PCA to be the technique of choice for some types of analyses and that it has some virtues that I have so far failed to grasp, but I remain sceptical.

    Ian Jolliffe”

  169. David A says:

    What Overpeck desires to do is make the MWP into a myth of supposed warm periods, and so preclude any attempt by sceptics to say that the current warming falls within past natural behavior of climate

    So when you hear somone say that they want to get rid of “myths”, like, say, the “Bigfoot myth”, your first conclusion is that they want to go out and kill Bigfoot? Not that they want to just get rid of the myth itself?
    Well, umm, that’s a very creative way to interpret Overpeck’s words, at least.

    It amazes me that this is even being argued about. Hmm, well, on the one hand, we could just present Overpeck’s words and let people interpret them how they will, or on the other hand, we could paraphrase it however we prefer, (potentially) completely changing the meaning. “Potentially”, since it seems to be ambiguous enough that there’s disagreement, although it seems pretty clear to me what Overpeck is saying, and it’s not “let’s expunge the MWP from the data record”. You can’t try to expunge what you don’t even believe exists, and Overpeck does not believe that a significantly large MWP exists.

    But, hey, people here are all about transparency and honesty, right? So Dana Nucitelli recently gets raked over the coals for misspeaking about Pielke on Twitter (justifiably — it was obviously a mis-speak, but a blatantly incorrect one), but this kind of re-interpretation and mis-speaking gets a free pass?
    That sure looks like a double standard. “Honesty and transparency for me, but not for thee”.

  170. “So when you hear somone say that they want to get rid of “myths”, like, say, the “Bigfoot myth”, your first conclusion is that they want to go out and kill Bigfoot?”

    False equivalency fallacy. There is no bigfoot, no scientist ever recorded it.

  171. Nick Stokes says deliberately misleading BS on December 9, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    Piltdown Mann et all wrote three hockey stick papers, which I referred to in my post as (MBH98 etc.). The first went back about 600 years, the next 1000 years and the next 2000 years (from memory – I can’t be bothered to look up that crap).

    So the first Mann paper eliminated the LIA, and the second and third papers eliminated both the LIA and the MWP.

    Nice try to mislead Nick. Maybe Piltdown will give you a job. Looks like you have the necessary credentials.

  172. “But, hey, people here are all about transparency and honesty, right”
    People differ.
    I think straight unadorned apology for the mistake is correct, and then pursue the known actual words and actions and results of Overpeck.

  173. Some persons calling themselves scientists never learn that real facts of the warm period in the past can’t be removed….
    ”Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today.” Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet, a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fa11 1997, sid 40

  174. Mann’s “Decentered PCA” is a data normalization error that has the effect of emphasizing red-noise (AKA “Drunkard’s Walk” or integrated white-noise) signals that happen to curve away (as almost ALL do, to a significant degree) at the ends (arcsine law). McIntyre and McKitrick in their famous paper showed this. It is a FORM of “selection bias”. It is amazing how very little “ordinary” selection bias is necessary to produce hockey sticks. It is easy to fool yourself into thinking you are just throwing out a few pathological data points. Decentered PCA is perhaps more subtle. It does its dirty work through the inherent programming. It “pinches” a group of signals together at one end and necessarily forces them further apart at the other end (rather than grasping then more nimbly at the middle). If you take the trouble to see what you have done, you will easily understand your (quite literally) “schoolboy error”. If you don’t look, you may just be happy to find the results you were hoping for, BOGUS as they are, and stop thinking.

  175. Every graph I’ve ever seen from the IPCC and Mann has the MWP deleted. So whether the quote is correct, incorrect, or mis-attributed, they DID make the MWP DISAPPEAR.

    Funny, that.

  176. Windchaser says: December 9, 2013 at 9:47 pm
    David A says:
    What Overpeck desires to do is make the MWP into a myth of supposed warm periods, and so preclude any attempt by sceptics to say that the current warming falls within past natural behavior of climate
    ===============================================
    So when you hear somone say that they want to get rid of “myths”, like, say, the “Bigfoot myth”, your first conclusion is that they want to go out and kill Bigfoot? Not that they want to just get rid of the myth itself?
    Well, umm, that’s a very creative way to interpret Overpeck’s words, at least.
    ======================================
    Windchaser, please reread what I wrote, as your analogy is a complete fail. If someone thinks bigfoot is “supposed”, and a “myth” in the scientific literature, (read the synonyms given for those words) that means they do not believe it exists, and if they demonstrate that, then they take away all credibility of those who claim to have found bigfoot, or the supposed mythical MWP.

    So Overpeck, and he was not alone, wanted to take away the ability of skeptics to use the existing literature to claim a “supposed” “mythical} period of warming, (his words referring to the scientific literature) as evidence of natural climate change equal to the change from 1975 to 1995. It is not a foreign language, it is what he said. He did not want to kill Bigfoot, who is a myth, he wanted to kill stories about bigfoot, (the MWP, which he called a myth, and supposed warm period.)

  177. The dictionary paraphrase of Overpeck is,…”I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of an imaginary, made-up, fictional and invented warm period terms, and the fairy tales in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too.”

    The literature he is referring to sceptics “citing”, is the literature they cited at the time, the scientific literature regarding the MWP, which Overpeck calls a imaginary, made-up, fictional and invented fairy tale “in the literature.”

  178. Waste of time asking Stevnick Stokesher.
    His reply is the perfect circlular jerk; “Scientists are those who do science. Science is whatever scientists do.”

  179. Hansen’s chihuahua is best described as a schmutterist – his business is in clothing the naked emperor in the latest fashion.

  180. Further to what I said a few days ago regarding the Chinese actually sailing around Greenland. This interesting information was taken from the book by Gavin Menzies called 1421, the Year China Discovered America. Mr.y Menzies has chapter about a fellow named Zhou Wen who lead a fleet of Chinese ships that circumnavigated Greenland in 1423 or thereabouts. This is astounding!! and tends to show that it was much warmer at that time and is within the time frame of the Medieval Warm period as is being address here. Caleb is correct in stating that there was a warm interval, but it culminated perhaps a little later than he indicates in his communication. And for the area of which I speak, to be ice free there would have had to have been quite a few years when it was also warm prior to 1423. Specifically Gavin Menzies mentions that from 1420 to 1428 the summers were “exceptionally warm” Also for the Norse to have settled in western Greenland, and even farmed around this time, the climate would have had to have been much milder than the present.

  181. Poptech says:
    December 10, 2013 at 8:13 am

    I love the hypocrite Mosher calling everyone out for an alleged misuse of this quote when he is fabricating that he is a “scientist”,

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-mosher/1/b07/27b

    Since when does a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy, with a career in Marketing make you a scientist?

    What makes Steven Mosher a scientist is precisely what makes Michael Mann and Phil Jones non-scientists. Steven publishes his work in a transparent manner, and accompanies it with all the data, code, and information that supports it. In addition, he answers questions and requests for information.

    That’s what makes a scientist, not the possession of a PhD. A scientist is a person who follows the scientific method. The scientific method works like this:

    • I make a falsifiable scientific claim in a public forum, and I publish all of the math, data, arguments, logic, and computer code that supports my claim.

    • I hand around the hammers and invite people to see if they can destroy my claim.

    • If they can destroy my claim, I admit I was wrong, and we move on. If they can’t, my results stand until such time as someone can destroy them, and we move on.

    The important point is that the scientific method lives and dies on transparency. If I don’t publish my data and code, if I refuse to answer questions, if I hide my methods, then no one can falsify my work. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong. It just means that without transparency, it’s not science. Hey, maybe I don’t want to reveal my method because I want to make money on it. And that’s fine … but it’s not science.

    And it is that aversion to scientific transparency on the part of many of the leading climate “scientists” like Mann and Jones that shows that they are not scientists under any meaning of the word. Scientists practice the scientific method, and they don’t.

    Finally, your willingness to descend to ad hominem attacks on those with whom you might disagree drops the odds of you being a scientist. If you don’t like Mosh’s science, rather than besmirching his name, how about you show us where you think his science wrong?

    All the best,

    w.

  182. Who could be best described as “deniers” here? Isn’t that a good description of people who want to rewrite history…

  183. Wiilis, you haven’t been reading Mosher’s definitions. Those are your definitions and close to mine, as well, but they are not Mosher’s.

    He did not say anything about sharing being part of the definition.

    It was whatever scientists do. Not about the scientific method. Not about sharing. Not about sum of knowledge.

    His evasions and broad unsubstantiated attacks bring responses. As he helped with attacks on you at Dr Roy’s, predicting cowardice from you.

  184. ” Steven Mosher says:
    October 10, 2013 at 2:39 PM

    At some point Roy they will claim that any minor difference in Willi’s formulation and prior formulations amounts to “a difference” In the extreme they will argue that nobody ever posted charts that look exactly like Willis’ charts.

    Its a variant of the true scotsman fallacy”
    Willis,
    Mosher offers a prediction that you will never admit to “the truth” of Dr. Roy’s charges, and “they” will do any amount of presenting fallacy in order to evade.
    “They” would have no leg to stand on if you had admitted that Dr. Roy was correct in his charges, so he’s saying you will never admit to the truth.

    If Mosher’s behaviour is the sign of a scientist, I don’t want to know any.

  185. Willis Eschenbach says:

    I love the hypocrite Mosher calling everyone out for an alleged misuse of this quote when he is fabricating that he is a “scientist”,

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-mosher/1/b07/27b

    Since when does a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy, with a career in Marketing make you a scientist?

    What makes Steven Mosher a scientist is precisely what makes Michael Mann and Phil Jones non-scientists. Steven publishes his work in a transparent manner, and accompanies it with all the data, code, and information that supports it. In addition, he answers questions and requests for information.

    Ah yes, our resident house carpenter is defending the English major.

    I am sorry but Mann and Jones are real scientists, whom may be unethical and ideologically biased but unlike you and Mosher they have relevant credentials and are employed as such.

    That’s what makes a scientist, not the possession of a PhD. A scientist is a person who follows the scientific method.

    The definition of the profession of a “Scientist” that is widely accepted is,

    “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”

    Neither you nor Mosher are scientists despite your delusional fantasies.

  186. Has the delusional echo chamber here really reach a point where you guys are so separated from reality that Willis and Mosher believe themselves to be scientists?

    [Reply: Stop fixating on individual personalities. Confine your comments to the article topic. ~ mod.]

  187. I disagree with Poptech, and Willis. “Science” is a prescribed pattern of logical analysis of observations and objective experiments. Anyone faithfully following the scientific method is a “scientist” There are armature scientist, and professional scientist. Poptech is reflecting a mirror to Mosher, ineffective communication, but accurate if a bit harsh.

    IMV, Mosher is a smart numbers man, better at that and statistics then most. However he repeatedly is critical of many in general (group insults) and engages in arrogant condescension towards those who disagree. The arrogance is expressed in general insults plus cryptic comments delivered with an aura of finality, and a refusal to then dialogue with those who disagree. This thread is quintessential Mosher…
    Steven Mosher says:
    December 8, 2013 at 11:16 am
    [snip - Mosh, you are welcome to resubmit this comment sans the childish name calling - Anthony]
    followed by…. If that was snipped, then what was it, as here is Mosher toned down; Steven Mosher says: ” Deming doesnt have the mail. We have nothing but hearsay. The monktopus is pretending that this is not hearsay. And none of you skeptics have the balls to call him on it.”
    So, personal insult to Monckton, false claim of hearsay to a respected congressional eyewitness, and group insult, all rolled into a few sentences.

    Willis, as others have pointed out, you also have been a target of Mosher’s immaturity. Beyond that, in my view, Mr. Mosher gets lost in the trees of numbers, and so cannot see the forest of corruption surrounding those numbers. (Consider that I have asked several times for an elevator explanation of the TOB adjustments, as well as specific examples, like the US adjustments and their increasing divergence from RSS, and some specific Iceland station adjustments. Mr. Mosher chooses not to lower himself to respectful dialogue) So, although I disagree with Poptech, I consider his comments to be Mr. Mosher’s well deserved karma.

  188. Willis, beyond Mosher insulting and false claim of hearsay, he ignores that the Dictionary paraphrase of Overpecks known e-mail, states precisely what the testified congressional record states, which Monckton quotes. In the following Dictionary paraphrase, synonyms for “supposed” and “myth” inserted as caps.

    The dictionary paraphrase of Overpeck is,…”I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of an IMAGINARY, MADE UP, FICTIONAL, AND INVENTED warm period terms, and the FAIRY TALE STORIES in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too.”

    Now if the MWP was as warm and as global as the current warming, then the skeptics use of them is fine. However if the warming was merely regional, and never global, which is not what the scientific literature, cited by skeptics at that time, taught, then the only way to “mortally wound” the skeptics use of the MWP, is to erase it as a global period equal to current warming. Clearly Overpect wanted the “supposed myth” of warming “in the literature” corrected, so those damm skeptics would stop using it.

  189. I chat across the fence with a neighbor who has a kindergarten-aged daughter who is very friendly, but easily bored and lets us talk while she goes about turning over leaves and rocks. “What are you doing?” I ask. “Looking for ants,” she replies. “Are there ants under all rocks?” I inquire. “No, mostly under the flat rocks,” I learn. “I see that you have a good grasp on the scientific method,” I said. She smiles, sensing a compliment, and goes back to her science.

    I suspect she has no PhD, but I don’t ask or care. It is evident that it is possible to be a complete ass demanding credentials, and no one cares, or at least no one should care.

  190. Anyone faithfully following the scientific method is a “scientist” There are armature scientist, and professional scientist.

    Without the qualifier “amateur”, use of the title is misleading and dishonest by either Willis or Mosher.

    Mosher is a smart numbers man, better at that and statistics then most.

    I have seen nothing impressive in this area from him and have never been swayed by a single argument he has ever made in this area. I have actually never been convinced by any of his scientific arguments of which I have found to be greatly lacking in substance. When I looked into his background this became quite clear why.

    [this is way off topic for this thread and any further comments along these lines will be snipped- mod]

  191. If Mosher is selling his services on his page, then that claim to be a scientist with the institution name attached, is not good at all.

  192. Gleick was pointed at, here, for being billed as a climate scientist, though only a “water scientist”. That’s a fine distinction, comparatively.

  193. Poptech, as Anthony desires no more specific comments here regarding Willis, Mosher, etc, I will make only a general comment. Your site is excellent, and your documentation first class.

    In general with regard to certain individuals qualifications you ride the horse too far, in my view. (I am simply saying there is a more respectful way to present your reasoned arguments)

    Most of my comments in this post were to keep the conversation on track by focusing on Overpecks e-mail, the one we know he did write, and show how in essence it says the same thing as the controversial e-mail. Perhaps in the future you can simply remind folk that certain others are armature scientists at best, and state the reason you disagree with whatever point they are making. For myself I will continue to read what others say, if necessary I will separate their reasoned message, if it exists, from their side bar insults. The best comments on this blog are from educated folk who only state the reasoned message, and never make it personal. (EM Smith’s comments, as an example, I find to be an example of such reasoned debate.)

    Thanks for all the work you put into your excellent web site, and I will use it in the future.

    At your service
    David A

  194. Why on Earth must put up with all this mud slinging? Let us discuss the important issue and that is the Medieval Warm Period itself!!!!! This site deserves much better than the majority of the emails are showing here!!!!!

  195. I’m quite tired of the nonsense here, too – clearly whatever the climate realists (those who believe climate is controlled by forces orders of magnitude greater than anything humans are capable of) and the climate alarmists want to make of the remarks, subsequent acts of these and others in the climate alarmist camp prove beyond any doubt that the intent became, even if it wasn’t stated as such, a determined effort to completely eliminate the Holocene climate optimum, not only such properly descriptive and honest titles.

    It’s unfortunate that the quotes became garbled, but in fact in doing so it’s ironic that they became ultimately better descriptors of what the climate alarmists were up to all along.

    So I want to go off on a tangent, as I’m known to do, since I’m more of the type person who has limited knowledge in a lot of areas rather than very precise & detailed knowledge of the key issues here, by asking a couple quick questions and hoping some of you with that actual precise & detailed knowledge can steer me straight:

    1) Is it not true that as a body emitting radiation warms or cools the wavelength of the radiation emitted changes and we use this fact of physics to measure exactly how hot distant stars are by the frequencies they emit, corrected for course for red shift?

    2) Is it not true that while H2O is quite good at absorbing infrared radiation across wide bands with just a few gaps, one of these narrow gaps being filled with the radiation bands where CO2 happens to be a good absorber…

    Well that’s far enough, I think someone among you might know where I’m going with this and either I’m terribly wrong or this is a simple argument that should have been presented but, as far as I know, never was. Of course there are other simple arguments related to how H2O and CO2 act and react to incoming IR energy that also play here but, sadly, the average person is much more prone to react emotionally and thus illogically to Al Gore’s pathetic claims “Earth has a fever!” than to the actual science involved, which they probably don’t even begin to understand.

  196. @ Rod Chilton – AGREED! The problem being the climate alarmists are desperate to discuss ANYTHING but the facts as even they are starting to be forced to admit the facts are all against them, hence their need to continually attack instead of calmly, rationally discuss THE FACT that there’s been no statistically significant warming for going on what, is it now 2 or 3 decades, despite continued increases in both human CO2 production AND total atmospheric concentration of same.

    When the facts don’t fit their arguments, desperate climate alarmists have nothing else to do but sling mud and hope nobody notices they’re unwilling to have an adult, honest conversation about how observations continue to prove their precious models wrong, more so with every passing year.

  197. @ David A – haven’t dug deeply into what caused your most recent (if I’m reading them right) comment, in which you referenced “armature scientists”… I know what an armature is (generally in elecromechanics, one of the two principal electrical components of an electromechanical machine; in sculpture a framework around which the sculpture is built; in biology an organ or structure – i.e. teeth or thorns – for offense or defense, etc.), but never heard of one of those!

    Oh, wait, perhaps you have a predictive spell checker and you meant to say AMATEUR?

  198. If you obtain your status as a scientist (i.e. your graduate degree) by writing complete nonsense about how humans have usurped the vastly more powerful forces of nature that control our weather, temperature and climate and are now in major if not complete control of what happens to them, are you a true scientist or just a pretender? If your “science” consists wholly of writing computer programs that have nothing in common with reality, are you a scientist or are you in fact just a hack programmer? Anyway, I see the label ‘armature scientist’ originated before David A’s more recent post so I withdraw what I said TO HIM about it above, at least for the time being as I continue to go back in time reading comments here.

  199. “…I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths…”

    CLEARLY his intent was to do everything he could to ELIMINATE any discussion of any significant warm periods in the many PEER REVIEWED papers that had been written previously about them and to do all he could to attack anyone who tried to reference them in current papers meant for publication. Now you can’t ‘kill bigfoot’ because, as someone mentioned above, first bigfoot would have to exist and we all know that’s not the case. But you CAN try to eliminate any major climate excursions that occurred before humans could have caused them and that is EXACTLY what he and other climate alarmists wanted, and were in the process of doing, as ALL the evidence PROVES. This quibbling over words is just more of the same pedantic semantic argumentum absurdium that climate alarmists all too often love to engage in because they’re incapable of having an honest, rational, science/fact based discussion of the topics involved. This thread is a prime example of that – ‘jes sayin’!

Comments are closed.