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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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”.
And wouldn’t our ABC and other goofy warmies in Oz like to “get rid of” our December snow?
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer-that-is-all/story-e6frflp0-1226775945701
Is Robert the guy who does the Idiot Tracker blog?
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.
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.”
Pamela Gray says:
“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.”
Joseph Smagorinsky ?
http://www.crispintickell.com/page78.html
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?
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.”
Mosh:
Since when does an eyewitness not meet the standard of evidence?
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.
Secret Santa has been past my chimney pot tonight.
IPCC AR5: Synthesis Report Pre-First Order Draft available here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/ipcc-ar5-synthesis-report-pre-first-order-draft-available-here/
Enjoy a cool Yule, a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hogmanay,
Cheers all
Rog TB
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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
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.