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.
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.
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.
Without the qualifier “amateur”, use of the title is misleading and dishonest by either Willis or Mosher.
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]
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.
Monckton explicitly says he’s not a climate scientist. Who’s the joker?
[you were warned upthread that this was getting off topic and further comments along these lines would be snipped -mod]
Gleick was pointed at, here, for being billed as a climate scientist, though only a “water scientist”. That’s a fine distinction, comparatively.
Sorry, Mod, no more on that from me.
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
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!!!!!
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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?
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.
“…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’!