By P Gosselin on 2. September 2021
Science scandal: What follows is an excellent overview of how the Medieval Warm Period was once again disappeared from the latest IPCC climate report.
===========================================
Who Erased The Medieval Warm Period?
Written by: a Die kalte Sonne scientist/IPCC 6th report reviewer
(Translation, edited and subheadings by P. Gosselin)
The latest UN report distorts climate history. The tracks lead to Bern, Switzerland.
In the Middle Ages, it was similarly warm in Switzerland and other parts of Central Europe as it is today. The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is scientifically well documented in the region: Between 800 and 1300 A.D., many Alpine glaciers shrank dramatically and some were even shorter than today. The tree line shifted upward. Permafrost thawed in high alpine regions that are still firmly in the grip of ice today. Warm temperatures are also clearly evidenced by tree rings, pollen, chironomid fossils, and other geological reconstruction methods.
Controversial temperature curve
It had long been assumed that the medieval warmth might be a regional, North Atlantic phenomenon. However, this has not been confirmed, because the warm phase also occurred in many other regions of the world, for example, on the Antarctic Peninsula, in the Andes, in North America, in the Arctic, in the Mediterranean, in East Africa, China and New Zealand.
Peer-reviewed: Medieval Warm Period global
Together with professional colleagues, we at Die kalte Sonne have evaluated many hundreds of case studies from around the world in recent years and published the syntheses continent by continent in peer-reviewed journals.
Three of the publications have been cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its recently published 6th Assessment of the Climate report. The medieval warmth was then followed globally by a precipitous drop in temperature. During the Little Ice Age, 1450-1850, the climate cooled to the coldest temperature level of the entire last ten thousand years.
Taping the hockey stick back together
In the new IPCC report, one will unfortunately look for this information in vain. In it one elevates one’s own view of the climate history of the last thousand years. In the summary intended for politicians, a controversial temperature curve is prominently displayed right at the beginning, giving the impression that there were only minimal pre-industrial climate changes in the last two millennia. With the onset of industrialization around 1850, the curve then rockets upward by more than one degree. This mode of representation is also known as the “hockey stick”: The climatically supposedly uneventful pre-industrial period forms the straight shaft of the stick, and at its end, with rapid modern warming, comes the upward blade of the hockey stick. It is therefore a déjà vu, an unnecessary one. The 3rd Assessment of the Climate Report of 2001 already contained a similar field hockey stick pattern, intended to fool politicians into thinking that today’s warming was unprecedented and therefore entirely man-made.
Recent paleoclimatological research confirms Medieval Warm Period
In the last two decades, however, paleoclimatology has made great progress, and data have been diligently collected. From this, more realistic temperature developments were created, with a pronounced Medieval Warm Period and a later Little Ice Age.
All the more bitter now is the relapse into old hockey stick times. How could this happen? What were possible motivations behind the renewed distortion of climate history?
Why back to the hockey stick? PAGES 2k
The questionable new hockey stick temperature curve comes from the international paleoclimatology group PAGES 2k, whose coordinating office is based at the University of Bern in Switzerland. Climate scientist Thomas Stocker, who has contributed to IPCC reports since 1998, also teaches and conducts research at that university. In 2015, Stocker even ran for the overall IPCC chairmanship, but lost to South Korean Hoesung Lee, who just presented the 6th Working Group 1 report. Stocker co-authored the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s 3rd Assessment of the Climate report in which the hockey stick played a prominent role.
Dissent among the PAGES-2k group
A good twenty years later, the resurfaced field hockey stick now comes from Stocker’s university, where he heads the Department of Climate and Environmental Physics. Just a dumb coincidence? There are many indications that the new climate curve may have been a commissioned paper for the 6th IPCC report. Five of the nineteen authors of the papers on the new hockey stick curve are from Bern.
But a significant portion of the PAGES-2k researchers could not technically support the new hockey-stick version and walked out of the group in dispute.
Proof thanks to tree rings
Meanwhile, these dissenting scientists published a competing temperature curve with clear pre-industrial climate changes. Based on tree rings, the specialists were able to prove that summer temperatures had already reached today’s levels several times in the pre-industrial past. But the work of Ulf Büntgen of the ETH Research Institute WSL and colleagues was not included in the IPCC report, although it was published in time for the editorial deadline. Interestingly, the controversial PAGES-2k curve was already included in the first draft of the 6th climate report, although the associated publication had not even formally appeared yet.
How could this be? In the second draft of the Summary for Policymakers, the curve shrank to postage-stamp size, positioned on the edge of a composite larger figure. This was the last version available for comment by the IPCC reviewers, of which a Die kalte Sonne scientist was one of the reviewers. It was all the more surprising, then, when the field hockey stick image suddenly appeared in full size in the final version.
IPCC conceals PAGES-2k controversy
The IPCC concealed from the public the fact that many experts and reviewers consider the curve to be highly problematic. On the one hand, the new hockey stick contains a whole series of outlier data, the use of which is difficult to justify. For example, PAGES-2k integrates a tree-ring dataset from the French Maritime Alps, even though the creators of the original case study explicitly advise against using it for temperature reconstructions. On the other hand, data are omitted that demonstrate strong pre-industrial natural climate variability. Detailed criticisms of this made in the review process of the report and formally published in publications were ignored by the IPCC authors.
That’s how easy it is to rewrite climate history, and hardly anyone notices. Why is this important? Pre-industrial temperature trends are highly relevant to the attribution of modern climate change to man-made factors on the one hand and natural factors on the other.
Since climate models have assigned only negligible natural climate forcings, they can only generate hockey stick patterns. Any real observed pre-industrial warm or cold phase therefore causes problems for the models because they cannot reproduce it. They are designed not to do so from the outset.
Mortally faulty model calibration
This raises uncomfortable questions about their fitness and usability for projecting the future climate. Ultimately, they are uncalibrated simulations that should not be released for future modeling at all, as long as they are still failing on past climate In other words, if a climate model provides answers to the question of what the past was like that are miles off reality, forecasting the future is likely to be similarly aberrant.
It is particularly peculiar that the climate models of the so-called CMIP6 type that were created specifically for the 6th Climate Report proved to be mostly unusable. Due to cloud modeling errors, they provided temperature histories that were far too hot. Therefore, the IPCC stated that in the current 6th report that it would place more emphasis on the historical temperature development.
Inconvenient issues
However, since this is also – as described – highly controversial, the IPCC is also now virtually flattening its spare tire. In its official press releases, the IPCC largely omits these inconvenient issues. And in most media reports, too, the public hears nothing about them.
Political tactics undermining science
Thus, scientific integrity falls by the wayside. It is only a matter of time before critical climate scientists systematically address the inconsistencies in the filtered IPCC 6th climate report. The incident reveals how political tactics are undermining the IPCC’s scientific integrity and further eroding the trust placed in the institution.
===============================================================
Climate researcher Thomas Stocker declined to comment when asked by WELTWOCHE. This article first appeared in WELTWOCHE Zurich: Die Weltwoche, No. 33 (2021)| 19. August 2021. (Subheadings added by NoTricksZone)
Also see:
– Pages-2k rebuttal
– MWP Map
– 200 Non-Hockey Stick Charts
You provide a good role model for redundancy.
Do read Donna Laframboise on the litany of IPCC dishonesties and the barefaced lying by Rajendra Pachauri. Why its ever been authoritative is remarkable.
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
By Donna Laframboise, for those who are interested. Great read!
https://www.amazon.ca/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q
Still the iconic picture about the dissenting view in paleoclimotology about the PAGES2K reconstruction:

from this paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1125786520300965
Nothing to see here…
There are a couple of important points to consider regarding this publication.
1) Both EA and EA+ reconstructions are for the NH only.
2) Both EA and EA+ are for June, July, and August only.
3) Both EA and EA+ show it being anomalously cool during most of the MWP (1100-1300).
4) Both EA and EA+ have no extended LIA period.
5) PAGES19 is a global reconstruction.
6) PAGES19 is not being challenged.
I’ll leave you with this quote from the publication.
If pre-industrial summers during Roman and medieval times, in the relative absence of volcanic forcing, were sometimes as warm as modern ones, the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases could be larger than anticipated.
They could but they don’t have to.
to 1 and 5) yes, cause there is reliable data there. The integrity of the PAGES19 data assembly has been challenged and is with this publication. Doing a global reconstruction doesn’t mean that one should with the data available.
to 2) it is tree ring data. Therefore, that is the months you get.
to 3) you give a wrong interval for the MWP. I can only guess if on purpose or not.
to 6) PAGES19 data collection for the NH is challenged as the figure clearly states.
For the Medieval Warm Period compared to today below:
Red balloons showed it was warmer.
Blue was colder than today(in that study)
Green was wetter/more precip
Yellow was drier
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/
If you go to the link below, you can hit those individual balloons and get each individual study:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&hl=en_US&ll=16.104045987509945%2C1.8272485000001097&z=2
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27525/#27705
Over 100 studies from the Medieval Warm Period, most of which show the planet was this warm or warmer 1,000 years ago. It was also this warm 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period and also just over 3,000 years ago, during the Minoan Warm period.
Medieval Warm Period Project:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials – CO2 Science
Where did the data from the bar graphs above come from so that we know that this is the authentic science vs the one that the MSM and dems describe with the fake climate crisis(where they can’t show the data to prove)?
List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php
List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/institutions.php
Mike:
There needs to be a time-scale attribution to those studies (the map) as they do not reflect the same synchronous time periods.
See my post below for the study which does take that into account.
The MWP was not a globally synchronous warming event and is explained by natural variation.
You’re being dishonest. While there are differences in the timing of the peak years of the MWP, some owing to errors inherent in dating paeological samples, the studies do show warming throughout the majority of the planet during the MWP.
Which studies that publish a global temperature reconstruction show elevated temperatures during the 1100-1300 period? I’d like to review them if you don’t mind.
First, wrong time period, second, there are studies published one after the other for the different continents. Not done yet, but in progress.
What do you get if you add all five together?
That is the right period. Read the works by Hubert Lamb who first discovered the anomalous warming in the North Atlantic and coined the name MWP (or more precisely the Medieval Warm Epoch) in 1965 to describe it. He focused on 1100-1300 and felt it peaked in the 1200’s. All global temperature reconstructions I’ve seen are consistent with the MWP, but inconsistent with claims that that the global temperature behaved the same as the North Atlantic region.
Just a brief google images search for MWP contradicts this claim. And wildly so.
Which image are you looking at? The ones I’m looking from Hubert Lambs research show the MWP between 1100-1300.
That an event that covered 400 to 500 years, did not start on the same day all over the world, is not evidence that the event was not world wide.
That just is unmasking the bias in the AGW scheme argumentation.
Cause it is totally okay that the arctic is warming faster than the rest oft the planet now for AGW but if the MWP is not synchronous all over the planet that is a “debunking” argument for its existence.
Hypocrisy at its best.
I think you may be misunderstanding what is meant by “synchronous” in this context. It just means that the global average moves in the same direction as a particular region. In this case the region in question is the North Atlantic which is what the MWP is referring to. See the works by Hubert Lamb who first discovered the phenomenon and pioneered the research on it. Lamb never said the MWP was a global event. In fact, he said the opposite. If there is any bias or revision of history it is by the blogosphere who misrepresented Lamb’s research. The MWP is real. Its existence is consistent with global temperature reconstructions. What is inconsistent with global temperature reconstructions is that the there was a significant global scale warming event.
The accumulation of local temperature reconstructions all over the globe are indicating otherwise.
Can you post a link to a global temperature reconstruction that shows that the global temperature behaved the same way as it did in the North Atlantic region during the MWP?
Who Deleted The Medieval Warm Period? Tracks Lead To University Of Bern
Sorry, can’t erase history.
The dishonesty never stops.
I’ve seen this subtly mendacious article before, and it relies on confusing a tax write-off (deducting the costs of doing business from taxes) and a subsidy (an outright cash payment from the State). Furthermore, it fails to account for the enormous payroll taxes paid by Exxon over the years.
Biden can’t seem to tell the difference between a tax-write off and a subsidy, either.
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-medieval-period.html
Mendacious crap from Anthony Banton. The MWP was global, as shown by the map posted by Mike Maguire above.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&hl=en_US&ll=16.104045987509945%2C1.8272485000001097&z=2
Try reading the abstracts of the papers connected with the map.
The red dots on that map are NOT for the same synchronous period (1000-1200AD)
This is (so far) the definitive MWP study…
“Multi-decadal to centennial variability.

Temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions, highlighting the regionally specific evolution of temperature at multidecadal to centennial time scales. However, the period from around ad 830 to 1100 generally encompassed a sustained warm interval in all four Northern Hemisphere regions. In South America
and Australasia, a sustained warm period occurred later, from around
ad 1160 to 1370. In the Arctic and Europe, temperatures were relatively high during the first centuries ad. Most other reconstructions are too short to infer temperatures before around ad 1000. The transition to colder regional climates between ad 1200 and 1500 is evident earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North
America or the Southern Hemisphere. Differences among regions could reflect non-forced variations involving the major modes of atmospheric variability. By around ad 1580, all regions except Antarctica entered a protracted cold period. Apart from intervals of relative regional warmth, especially during the eighteenth century,
cold conditions prevailed until late in the nineteenth century.”
“Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide
MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm
and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an
underlying global cooling trend.”
Please find and link a full peer-reviewed study that connects all warm events globally into the putative 1000-1200 MWP timeframe such that they were synchronous … as is AGW now.
Moving the goalposts again, are we? I’m pleased that you now accept that the MWP was indeed global, at least.
Why should a climatic era be synchronous everywhere?
No. He explicitly states the opposite. As Climate Science has done, and as it has been explained to you deniers numberless times.
“Temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions, highlighting the regionally specific evolution of temperature at multidecadal to centennial time scales. However, the period from around ad 830 to 1100 generally encompassed a sustained warm interval in all four Northern Hemisphere regions. In South America and Australasia, a sustained warm period occurred later, from around
ad 1160 to 1370.”
Don’t forget to take that big red nose and white makeup off before you go to bed tonight, and take care not to trip over those long, floppy shoes.
1160-1370 does not even overlap 830-1100 partially.
Ah yes, a single paper, so long as it is by a scientist that nyolci agrees with, trumps thousands of papers by climate deniers.
A few corrections, as usual:
No. There are a lot of papers, including those Maguire always comes up with. This was given as a good one for reading.
My agreement (just as yours) is irrelevant in science.
No, those papers were from scientists, and contrary to all the bullshiting here, they don’t show MWP was global(ly warmer than today).
No. Science deniers. You can’t really deny climate.
One day, if you’re lucky, you might grow up.
The point is that you exclude all scientists that you disagree with. Then surprise surprise, the scientists that are left all agree with you, and that proves you are right.
Actually they do show that the MWP was global and warmer than today, but because that’s not what you want to believe, you ignore them.
Can you post a link a few studies that provide a global temperature reconstruction showing that it was than today?
“you exclude all scientists”
No. This is simply false.
“Actually they do show that the MWP was global and warmer than today”
Have you tried reading at least a few of those papers that are featured on Maguire’s bullshit page? FYI I have, and they do not support your assertion. My guess is that the selection criteria were something like this: peer reviewed + MWP mentioned. Regardless of what they actually showed. One paper was about some Sub Saharan region where the MWP was synchronous with dry conditions. Of course the paper didn’t say it was warmer that time, it didn’t say much about temperature at all.
What a ridiculous comment. Why should “all warm events globally” be synchronous? Current GW is not synchronous globally – BEST found one third of the sites in their original study showed cooling.
Resident clowns nyolci and Banton have already been shown to have lied about the global extent of the MWP, so they are forced to move the goalposts with their drivel about synchrony.
The context of “synchronous” here is in regard to the timing of each local warm event. Were they synchronous enough that the global temperature increased by a significant amount and stayed high for a couple hundred years as well? When all of these local warm events are connected together to form a global picture the answer to that question is mostly no.
It seems to me that nobody (yes- nobody) talks about the Hydrological cycle and it’s influence on the climate. There being a sinister political closing down of any discussion on this important aspect.
Of course, the reason is obvious; as if you do look at the workings of this cycle, which is essentially a Rankine Cycle you find that the whole question of CAGW falls out of bed as being total nonsense.
With the political nature of the IPCC in mind the whole debate becomes quite clear as merely a left wing/marxist agenda to destroy democratic capitalism and obtain the global levers of power through the control of energy.
Anyone believing that the IPPC is a credible scientific institution is either naive or dishonest.
Here are some names: Prof. Thomas Stocker (Uni Bern) is co-chairman of the IPCC Working Group I. His pupil is Prof. Reto Knutti (ETH Zurich). Both of them are climate change promoters. Both of them place model calculations above experimental measurements and verification. Pat Frank also showed in WUWT and a peer reviewed paper that they have no idea what uncertainty and error estimations are, which completely invalidate the climate models. The glacier expert Christian Schlüchter (also Uni Bern) who showed contradicting evidence to alarmist theory was also put into early retirement. Guess who might have made arrangements for that… Now, both at Uni Bern and ETH there is a “new generation” of young climate science Profs with only a handful of “publications” (supporting of course the alarmist narrative), who get these academic positions, sometimes without even having studied physics. On top of that they are constantly awarding each other research prizes for “work” which mostly boils down to religious repetition or justification of the official climate change mantra. The ETH is in danger of losing it’s reputation and that’s really a shame. Lyssenko must be laughing in his grave…
Wonder why no citations?
Die kalte Sonne, meaning ‘the cold Sun’ in German, was a book published about a decade ago predicting massive cooling during solar cycle 24 due to low solar output (a bit like David Archibald did here). The low solar output duly occurred but unfortunately for the predictions, lower temperatures did not; in fact, these rose substantially throughout solar cycle 24, making it the solar cycle with by far the warmest average global surface temperatures in the instrumental record.
It would be interesting to hear an account from the people at Die kalte Sonne as to why it is they think their predictions failed so miserably.
It becomes a nasty fight when foe is unafraid of the most brazen lie and will repeat it endlessly and with widespread help.
As i’ve often said WWIII is already upon us softly brainwashing our children over time.
I fear only a major uprising will quell it this time.
A trick learned at the knee of Michael Mann, currently a member “in good standing” of the US “National Academy of Scientists”.
The farce continues.
From the article: “On the other hand, data are omitted that demonstrate strong pre-industrial natural climate variability. Detailed criticisms of this made in the review process of the report and formally published in publications were ignored by the IPCC authors.
That’s how easy it is to rewrite climate history, and hardly anyone notices. Why is this important? Pre-industrial temperature trends are highly relevant to the attribution of modern climate change to man-made factors on the one hand and natural factors on the other.”
You can apply this same argument to the instrument-era regional surface temperature charts from all around the world that show the same benign temperature profile, where it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
When we have data that shows it was warm all over the planet during the Medieval Warm Period, we can then conclude the Medieval Warm Period was global.
The same goes for the regional surface temperature data from around the world. If they show the same temperature profile all over the world, then *that* is the true temperature profile of the globe.
The regional surface temperature charts from all over the world show us we have nothing to fear from CO2, because it is not any warmer now than it was in the recent past when CO2 was not a factor. We now have more CO2 in the air than in the Early Twentieth Century, but according to the regional surface temperature charts, we are not any warmer today than then, despite CO2 increasing.
The only thing showing unprecedented warming is the bastardized computer-generated global surface temperature record. If the alarmists didn’t have this lie, they wouldn’t have anything.
Alarmist Climate Science = Lies All the Way Down
“That’s how easy it is to rewrite climate history, and hardly anyone notices.”
Let’s expand on this. Hubert Lamb pioneered the research on the MWP and even coined the name (technically the variation Medieval Warm Epoch) in 1965. Lamb had said all along that the MWP was a phenomenon primarily effecting the periphery of the North Atlantic and especially Europe. In fact, he said that many parts of the world actually cooled during the period 1100-1300 AD which was the period designated by Lamb as the MWP. And we now know that the AMOC was the likely culprit. So how exactly did the blogosphere rewrite history and start claiming that the global mean temperature increased by the same amount as what happened in the North Atlantic?
“When we have data that shows it was warm all over the planet during the Medieval Warm Period, we can then conclude the Medieval Warm Period was global.”
Really? Even the NTZ website has a couple of pages dedicated to linking to hundreds of studies with reconstruction from all over the world that when combined and time aligned show no global MWP event. Perhaps you could link to a few studies that actually publish global mean temperature reconstructions. I cannot emphasize the word global enough here.
Even the climate activist infested wikipedia says that Hubert Lamb said the MWP was from 1000-1200.:
.
But why not looking at the initial study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031018265900040?via%3Dihub
You are posting false claims.
And yeah, there is only one global reconstruction so far and you know it that is why you’re coming up with it all the time!
But that is the questionable PAGES19 which McIntyre and Büntgen et al. with other former of the PAGES2K consortium are challenging for good reasons like using data from papers where the authors themself say it is unsuitable for temperature reconstruction.
And btw, surprise, research moves on so the up to date estimate for the MWP is more like 900-1150 which is well within error margin of the initial claim by Lamb who used historical records as one of his primary sources.
I did read the publication. His primary focus in the publication is England of which the warm period was from 1100-1300. I’m completely agreeable and amendable to using the broader region and 1000-1200 as the definition of MWP since that does appear in the abstract and because he does have commentary, albeit less focused, on the broader North Atlantic region. Perhaps it would be better to just say the MWP is 1000-1300 in that case.
The crux of the problem still remains. No temperature reconstruction shows that this 1000-1300 period was accompanied by a globally synchronous response.
Absence of scientific reference is not absence of presence. That is a logical fallacy.
That is very generous to allow Lamb to say what Lamb said and not what you said Lamb said.
It would be less accurate to false as research since Lamb’s retirement has shown that the MWP was more like 900-1150 with it’s peak around 1000.
Just because somebody came up with something first does not mean all of it stays scientifically accurate forever.
Well.. I would suggest that an post discussing the recent IPCC report and especially the SPM should link to S. McIntyre´s find about the Cape Ghir series
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
“Precisely why local Cape Ghir (offshore Morocco) temperatures were going down is somewhat of a quandary. Rather than figuring out this quandary, Neukom and the woke just turn the series upside down, following the example of Upside Down Mann by orienting the series according to its correlation with target instrumental temperature, even in their “CPS” reconstruction – a technique that is normally resistant to opportunistic flipping of proxies to enhance HS-ness of a final reconstruction.”
Result, use strong (local) cooling as a “proof” of warming, this is a scandal and anyone intersted in climate science should be all over it! How can anybody NOT be outraged by this?
The fact I’m reading this post proves you don’t know your head from your ass
Just go away and quit wasting all our time
During the period 800–1300 the Vikings settled Iceland, and Greenland,,,when the cold returned, the VIkings disappeared from Greenland.
Lordy, go after someone truly evil. Try Amazon or Disney.
Ancient tree stumps in Siberia tell that the treeline there was also just as far north during the MWP as it is now:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/09/the-to-and-fro-of-the-siberian-taiga-tundra-treeline/
Today we have a mini-hockey-stick with Arctic ice volume and extent:
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/#c23629
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-extent0/
and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.