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)
The evidence that it is regional is the same evidence that it is not global. Where is the evidence it was regional, only?
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.
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.
P.S. My last post says absolutely nothing about global warming or whatever it might be called these days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Steven Mosher says:
December 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm
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.
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:
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.
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)?
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?
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”.
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.
Make that ‘an addressee’!
Stokes,
Are you sure of what you’re saying? My recall is that in an interview he that it may have been an Overpeck.
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.
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:
http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
But Arctic amplification is a political sacred cow within the The Team, so very hard to challenge internally.
“We have to get rid of the Warms 1930s”.
And they did.
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.
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?