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)
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
@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/
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
[cut the garbage. Think about what you want to say, then say it in a civilized manner. Mod]
Nick Stokes says:
December 8, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Can you ever get over semantics and just say what is what REALLY Nick.
@MOD sorry got mad
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?
also some valuable detail and context in this thread:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/
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.
What is the evidence that the MWP was global and not regional?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.