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.
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.”
It is obvious that Overpeck is saying he would like to deal a mortal blow to the sceptics misuse of the MWP in the literature.
Time for a reality check…http://postimg.org/image/xk46zv29l/
Here’s a key difference between the two versions, in how we interpret them:
Paraphrase of original: “I want to stop the misuse of the regional, not-so-significant warming periods such as the MWP in science communication”.
Monckton’s paraphrase: “I want to abolish the MWP, and actual period where the Earth was warmer.”
You might disagree with Overpeck, but he clearly is talking about trying to move back towards the data (as he sees it), and away from distortion of the data. Monckton’s paraphrase makes it seem like the opposite, like Overpeck is trying to distort the data.
Look, the Overpeck quote is only 31 words. If you actually care about being on the honest and forthright side, you can just quote Overpeck directly, rather than paraphrasing him, which will inevitably impose your interpretation bias on his words. Let people decide for themselves how to interpret him; don’t put words in his mouth.
The quote seems to be interpreted a number of different ways already, so paraphrasing him doesn’t seem reliable. I’m with Nick and the others who think that Overpeck’s emphasis on “misuse” is pretty important; it shows that Overpeck is not trying to distort the data, but get back to it.
Forget the Medieval Warm Period.
“Alberta Canada Sees Avalanche Of New Record Lows … “Glacial Temperatures” … Edmonton Sees -39°C! ”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/09/alberta-canada-sees-avalanche-of-new-record-lows-glacial-temperatures-edmonton-sees-39c/
“NSIDC “Prepared To Make Public” New All-Time Record Low For Earth, Recorded In Antarctica: Minus 91.2°C!”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/09/nsidc-prepared-to-make-public-new-all-time-record-low-for-earth-recorded-in-antarctica-minus-91-2c/
Jonathan Overpeck, 2005:
“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.”
David Deming, 2006:
“In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. (…) 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.””
Monckton, 2013:
“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.””
Anthony Watts, 2013:
“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,..”
Apparently allowed paraphrasing using quotation marks:
Jimbo, at December 9, 2013 at 1:03 pm said: “Look! Squirrel!”
I hereby revoke my claim that paraphrasing is okay with quotes. Thanks fellers, for the heads up. What I was thinking was: it is perfectly acceptable to paraphrase if dead accurate. The quotes don’t strengthen a paraphrase anyway. Best to simply say what the person is trying to say without exaggeration or oversimplification.
@Poems of Our Climate
Cheers! (and you can quote that literally! Just do not fabricate any quote I didn’t say! I’ll paraphrase stuff you said and make a quote of it when you don’t!) 😉
From the response by the authors, about Overpecks suggestions, they too took the meaning that Monckton took.
It’s funny that Stokes et all think that Overpeck he would have to speak explicitly of doing wrong without cloaking it at all in plausibly deniable words in order to say what he wanted to be produced.
The emails show the smarter ones and even Jones talking in cloaked manner when discussing clearly improper actions.
How to respond to McIntyres? Suggest calling them lazy and so on. That was when they actually felt threatened. But in conversation, it was cloaked so that the smears are as if actually believed, rather than that they were facing a fearsome prospect who they really just wanted to “GET RID OF”.
Steven Mosher says: December 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm
……Deming doesn’t have the mail. We have nothing but hearsay. (Monckton) 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: we demand to see the mail. ……. we should demand to see the Deming mail. If Deming didn’t keep the mail …… all we have is hearsay.
In my opinion, Mosher is correct in noting this as hearsay.
And quite incorrect in saying (with his usual flippant, holier (smarter?) than thou style) that no skeptics in here are calling it.
Many have done so, that is why there is a debate going on.
No, I mulled over that. The grammar is bad and it can be interpreted a number of ways. What is being ignored by everyone is the rest of the email, which clears it up.
The grammar is still not perfect, but it’s clear he’s acknowledging previous warm periods exist, and saying that their use as analogs for the current warm period is “pure rubbish”.
It’s clear he acknowledges previous warm periods in the next paragraph, too.
If HTM is “another” warm period, then the previous paragraph was pointing them out, not dismissing them. Otherwise the word “another” makes no sense. And he’s clearly acknowledging HTM as a warm period.
As his published work before and after the quote directly acknowledges the MWP (eg, How unprecedented is recent Arctic warming: A look back to the Medieval Warm Period – Overpeck (1998)) I conclude that he is trying to dismiss not his own work, but what he views as misrepresentations of paleoclimate.
Only way I can see of interpreting the sentence your way is if you completely remove the context of his publications and ignore the other comments he makes in the email. And that may be how the false quote got attached to Overpeck in the first place, if that was indeed who Deming was referring to.
markx,
yes, Mosher has overlooked skeptics upthread questioning the interpretation. But he may have been referring to the broad agreement amongst skeptics on this quote that existed before this article.
In my post of December 9, 2013 at 5:12 am it is clear that there was a widespread effort in the warmist camp to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
There is no need to argue the fine points of the wording of Overpeck’s email. That entire argument is just specious nonsense – Overpeck’s objective was and is clear.
The effort to discredit the global reality of the MWP was concerted and widespread and was deliberately done to bolster the credibility of the false MBH98 (etc.) hockey stick papers, which we knew were total crap when they were written.
MBH98 was in fact used to abolish the MWP. Sheesh, did people forget TAR?
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm
Mann, Mann, Mann……
And wiped out hundreds of previous research papers indicating a clearly warmer period ~1000 years ago globally, just as Overpeck and his ilk planned to do.
Today there are reams of new papers verifying a MWP, not only in the NH, but globally.
Mosher hates WUWT so much that he even tries to cover for the guilty…and he knows they were guilty of trying to get rid of McIntyre through illicit means. Get rid of possible respect he might glean, get rid of his criticisms, get rid of him. Part and parcel of the same effort by the same people.
( it appears loyalty is a bad word for Mosher)
He fancies himself rubbing shoulders more with the Clintons than with the plain people.
Allan MacRae says: December 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm
“The effort to discredit the global reality of the MWP was concerted and widespread and was deliberately done to bolster the credibility of the false MBH98 (etc.)”
David Rodale says: December 9, 2013 at 6:15 pm
“MBH98 was in fact used to abolish the MWP.”
Nonsense, of course. But it’s true that MBH98 showed no MWP in the last 600 years. The MWP has moved around a bit, but I don’t think anyone now claims it lasted much beyond 1400. So Mann was right.
Nick Stokes says:
“So Mann was right.”
Nick, you do not know what you’re talking about. MBH98 did not go back to the MWP.
dbstealey says: December 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
“Nick, you do not know what you’re talking about. MBH98 did not go back to the MWP.”
dbs, you do not read. Look again at the quotes I was responding to.
The actual words used are not so important. A desire was expressed – The “Hockey Stick” was produced, and presto – the Medieval Warm Period was got rid of. Surely this is what happened, despite the argument and all the niminy-piminy mincing around which exact words were said by whom. People made things up and the World was the loser, both in terms of Science and Financially. The Lost Years of Gibberish and Nonsense can never be returned, The Wasted Time Debating Balderdash is what irks me the most.
“Nonsense, of course. But it’s true that MBH98 showed no MWP in the last 600 years. The MWP has moved around a bit, but I don’t think anyone now claims it lasted much beyond 1400. So Mann was right.”
Non sequitur, Nick.
Nick , doing that shows something about you that is not complimentary to say.
Even WA says
“Removal of the Gaspe record from the MBH reconstruction during the early 15th century
when proxy PC summaries are used, as mentioned in MM05b, represents a potentially useful
adjustment of the original MBH results. With this correction, the adjustment of the MBH time
series over 1400–1449 averages ∼+0.05–0.10◦, depending on the centering convention used
for the proxy PC calculations, as shown by the blue curve in Figure 3. This adjustment yields
a maximum high excursion of 0.21–0.26◦ over the entire 15th century, which is similar to the mean of mid-20th century temperatures, but ∼0.6◦ below late-20th century”
thisisnotgoodtogo says: December 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm
“…So Mann was right.”
Non sequitur, Nick.
Not at all. Consider a quote I was replying to:
“MBH98 was in fact used to abolish the MWP.”
MBH98 showed no MWP, and was criticised for that. But it seems to be now agreed that there was indeed no MWP post 1400. So MBH98 didn’t abolish it; it wasn’t there.
“MBH98 showed no MWP, and was criticised for that. But it seems to be now agreed that there was indeed no MWP post 1400. So MBH98 didn’t abolish it; it wasn’t there.”
It doesn’t matter what you were replying to, if you know better than what you replied with.
Nick, there was not agreement.
” I don’t think anyone now claims it lasted much beyond 1400. ”
” ‘Much’ beyond”. “Much” being key to your subterfuge.
“You might disagree with Overpeck, but he clearly is talking about trying to move back towards the data (as he sees it), and away from distortion of the data. Monckton’s paraphrase makes it seem like the opposite, like Overpeck is trying to distort the data.”
——————————————
Rubbish ““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.”
The sentence clearly states, in order, sceptics misuse of supposed (1.accepted as true but doubtful: accepted, at least by some, as correct, real, or having a quality, but on slender or uncertain evidence; Synonyms: · imaginary · made-up · fictional · invented) warm period terms and myths (Synonyms: legend · fable · saga · fairy story · fairy tale) in the literature.
So an accurate paraphrase is…”I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of imaginary · made-up · fictional · invented warm period terms and fairy tales in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too.”
It is English, and really pretty straightforward. The use of “myth” precludes any other interpretation of “supposed”. The actions of the hockey team are in perfect sync with the Overpeck exact phrase, as well as the paraphrase by Monckton. What Overpeck desires to do is make the MWP into a myth of supposed warm periods, and so preclude any attempt by sceptics to say that the current warming falls within past natural behavior of climate. Nick and Mosh are wrong, Monckton is correct. If the MWP is real, and global, then the null hypothesis is still valid. Te best way to “mortally wound” the sceptics case, is by making the MWP a made up fictional invented myth, which is exactly, precisely and with redundancy what Overpeck called it.
I rest the case.