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:
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.
Related articles
- Intelligence and the hockey stick (wattsupwiththat.com)
- New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope (wattsupwiththat.com)
- BREAKING NEWS: CRU’s Jones admits climate data problems, and Medieval Warm Period (briefingroom.typepad.com)
- ScienceMag: Medieval Warm Period global, 0.65 °C warmer than present: ‘The largest ocean was 2 °C warmer than today when ancient civilizations exploded’ (climatedepot.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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.
to jeff:
But any use of the MWP would be a misuse in their opinion.
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.
He’s right, the PROPER use of the MWP is to show that the current TEMPERATURE TRENDS are NOT EXCEPTIONAL. And that statements to indicate that “we” understand climate and all the drivers are drivel. So I’m totally on this fellows side, philosophically. Problem is, his intent. I will agree, the intent was to signal efforts to “abolish” the MWP. Sort of LIKE THIS!!!
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2010/04/uncertain-history.html
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
Jeff – the quote is “misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths…”. Learn to read it all.
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.
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 .’
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.
@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”.
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.
“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.
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?
.
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/
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.
Watching Detroit Lions vs. Philadelphia Eagles football game. Wondering if Al Gore is at the game. The snow is pretty deep.
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…
[snip – Mosh, you are welcome to resubmit this comment sans the childish name calling – Anthony]
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
Wow .. thanks for the head up …
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
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.
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.
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. “