Talk:David Deming (geologist)

Untitled

Before I add information on Deming's peer-reviewed paper opposing the anthropogenic global warming theory, I invite discussion from all my scientific friends who read my every edit.

In 1995, I had a short paper published in the prestigious journal Science (Deming, 1995). I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. I closed the manuscript with what seemed to me to be a remarkably innocuous and uncontroversial statement:

“A cause and effect relationship between anthropogenic activities and climatic warming cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time” (Deming, 1995, p. 1577). [1]

This is apparently the one and only paper contradicting the prevailing view; it may have a bearing on the editorial in Science recently that 0.000% of peer-reviewed scientific papers disagree with the AGW theory. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unambiguously means 100% certainty, and in 1995, climate scientists didn't think it was 100% certain, as the signal was only emerging from the noise. Saying the evidence did not support it is not the same as saying the evidence as against it. Note that the first quote is from the Journal of Scientific Exploration, in an issue (19.2) with 4 other articles: crop-circle debunk, reincarnation of Japanese soldiers as Myanmar children, a UFO writer lamenting his inability to get papers published, and a discussion of a shutdown of an ESP research facility. His JSE paper was actually published 3 months earlier (perhaps a rule violation) at Fred Singer's SEPP website, and was then quoted for months by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMashey (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Work on the Hum

What do you think about [2] and [3] in the context of this lemma? The author of this noteworthy work on The Hum seems to be a self-reported hearer of the Hum, but don't trust me. Implying nothing here. If it's true and if he is the same person: Why isn't it mentioned in the article? --213.61.130.220 (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is no good reason to not include these facts into the article. --213.61.130.220 (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tags, Academic Freedom section

I cleaned up the Academic Freedom Controversies section (and most of the rest of the article) for NPOV. Would whoever tagged this have a look, and see if their concerns were met. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Further reading" much too long

I tagged this for cleanup -- seems to be a random selection of opinion pieces by & about Deming. This needs to be seriously pruned, & it would be better to include some of his academic works as well. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Does This Article Exist?

Aside from the controversies surrounding him, it seems that Deming has a rather thin publication record and is not considered eminent in his academic field. There are a number of living geoscientists in or from Oklahoma who have had far more distinguished careers. So I would like to pose the question "why does this article exist, and why is it so lengthy?" I suggest eliminating this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.87.116 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 October 2010‎

(I note that the author of the above was posting from 139.78.87.116, which seems located at Oklahoma State University, not U of OK (where Deming is). I cannot blame someone from either place for wanting this to go away.)

Actually, this article is quite useful (albeit certainly could use cleanup), for a reason having nothing to do with Deming's geophysics reputation. Deming wrote an essay in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) with a claim never supported by the slightest evidence, and that actually made no sense, given real history. The claim was widely repeated as part of the attack on the climate hockey-stick, in blogs, books, and even testimony for the US Senate. In his 2010 book, "The Greatest Hoax," Sen. James Inhofe(R-OK) quoted Deming. It was later mused as the basis of claims about researcher Jon Overpeck, to whom the key quote was ascribed with zero evidence. Very few Oklahoma geophysicists have been as widely quoted in books intended for general audiences. Since no evidence for Deming's claim has ever been presented, the story rests entirely on Deming's personal credibility, for which readers may find the collection of data useful. His most famous quote perhaps should be shown and discussed.JohnMashey (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that coverage is useful, at present this article serves mainly to reiterate Deming's views without the mainstream context required by WP:WEIGHT, and is badly lacking in third party sources as required by WP:V and needed to establish notability. We should think of removing non-notable paragraphs or sections sourced only to Deming, and good quality mainstream sources on Deming's views are needed to show context. Has his famous quote actually been discussed in such sources? . dave souza, talk 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with both Mashey & Souza re cleanup and shortening. Looks like a lot of the cruft I pruned away a couple of years ago is back, and maybe more? Deming's notable, but a pretty minor player, imo. Bah. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Has his famous quote actually been discussed in such sources? Many sources continue to circularize the incorrect quotation, as if it were genuine. For example, when presented with the e-mail Jonathan Overpeck actually wrote, Steve McIntyre continues to twist his words. [4] But no reliable sources discuss David Deming's fabrication, or McIntyre's and Andrew Montford's obvious misuse of it, that I can observe. — TPX 18:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that CA article and don't get your point? Deming is mentioned in passing, but the main part of the article is quotes from the CG emails, which are pretty well accepted as genuine by everyone, sfaik. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to the bogus quote, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period", attributed to Overpeck by David Deming. Jonathan Overpeck denies having wrote such a thing, and the UEA e-mails show him to be correct and Demming et al. wrong. A review of Andrew Montford's book by Frank O'Dwyer also supports Overpeck. [5] — TPX 19:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and fix this, citing O'Dwyer in the article, please. Not that the CG emails make Overpeck look like a paragon, mind -- but that's another issue. Thanks & cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

On second thought -- not sure if O'Dwyer is a RS. His review is on his personal blog, and glancing through other articles, he's pretty polemical. But the Deming quote business.... [checks article] Ah, we don't actually use the "famous quote" -- and probably shouldn't, since it's dubious. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

I am sorry for not signing my comment above, I almost always do when I edit or comment on articles. However, in is case I do not wish to risk harassment, a frivolous lawsuit or worse. If you have ever had to deal with Deming professionally, as I have, you would understand my concern. He is almost universally shunned by his professional colleagues, not only at OU but within the professional and scholarly societies. I was involved in one instance, a number of years ago at a conference, when he actually threatened a colleague with a gun. I know personally many of the people involved with his expulsion from the School of Geology & Geophysics at OU and none of it had to do with his 1st Amendment rights or alumni pressure (most of whom are politically very conservative). It had to do with his treatment of students and his colleagues.

As I stated above, this article gives stature to someone who has very little professional standing but has cleverly turned himself into some sort of 1st Amendment champion. If you insist on keeping the article, please at least remove the phrase "American geologist and geophysicist" at the beginning and replace it with something like "right wing activist and commentator."

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Deming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410222736/http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324081052281380 to http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324081052281380

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)