UPDATE: Monckton offers apology, see below
Given the recent elevated rhetoric in Australia, the claims of death threats, and the media suggestions of skeptics getting tattooed and gassed, I was dismayed to see this in news.acom.au:
h/t to WUWT reader AdderW for the link to the above story.
Since I was invited to tour and speak in Australia last year at many of the same venues, I feel I should comment on this.
Alarmists in Australia are doing enough damage to themselves with over the top rhetoric. We don’t need to weaken our position on our interpretations of the data uncertainty and the science problems by committing rhetorical suicide.
Nobody has ever won an argument by invoking Godwins Law.
While Lord Monckton is free to speak his mind however he wishes, it is my opinion that this has no place in the debate, nor do the recent ugly calls from Australian columnists Richard Glover and Jill Singer.
I’m certainly not blameless in the issue of civility in the climate debate, as I’ve had my moments where I’ve rattled off an angry comment missive or a post that was misinterpreted that I have later regretted. There’s plenty of “heat of the moment” examples of that on both sides.
However, putting swastikas in planned public powerpoint presentations, and linking that by name to a person, is in my opinion, way over the top and in very bad form and totally hijacks and negates the important messages elsewhere in the presentation.
=============================================================
UPDATE: Lord Monckton responds in comments
Monckton of Brenchley says:
I have been a very bad Lord. My remarks about Professor Garnaut were unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike. Mea maxima culpa. I have apologized to him unreservedly, and I deserve the criticisms that Anthony and many commentators have posted here. Sorry to you all. I shall try to keep my cool in future. – M of B
He says similar things in this Telegraph article:
Lord Monckton has since apologised for the remarks.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he said: “I have written to Ross Garnaut to withdraw unreservedly and to apologise humbly. What I said about his opinions was unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike.”
Fully agree!
Brgds/TJ
I don’t think you should need to clarify your comment with “in my opinion.” Any sane person knows that this is incredibly offensive and completely outrageous. And much like whenever the other side does something silly, this will be green fodder for alarmists.
Good on you Anthony, Both sides of the debate need to be held to acting like mature adults instead of spoiled adolescents. Otherwise everyones message will get lost in the hysteria.
You are correct, Anthony. The image of a swastika is always deeply offensive in any context. Allusions to nazism gravely discredit Lord Monckton’s otherwise excellent record.
If Chris Monckton is guilty of argumentum ad Hilterium (and I think he is), then you’d better not go to “The Reference Frame” where Lubos Motl does this all of the time…
I’ve realized belatedly that Lord Monkton may be affiliated with the “NWO phobic” fringe groups. Sort of a UK version of the JBS. Not saying such groups are all wrong or all bad, but they have gone around the bend on a number of issues.
Good comments and I hope he removes it from his presentation. We know he reads your blog or has associates that do. Stay on topic, discuss the science and leave the mud slinging to those who like to wallow in the mud.
Thank you for this blog, Anthony.
Andrew,
I agree. Lord Monckton is over the top here but the good gentleman does have a tendency to be a bit overly dramatic. While he may be forgiven for his excesses, they do diminish him somewhat. While you may say you are not blameless on the issue of civility in the climate debate, your overall modesty and reserve in this regard is exemplary. Continue your good work.
Remember the button? The one used to blow up children who did not join the “Klimate Youth”?
I think Monckton is being restrained.
The comparison is also inaccurate. There are major differences between the political creeds of Fascism, National Socialism and Communism. The methods and political architecture of the extremist CAGW adherents are taken directly from an amalgam of Stalinism and Leninism , heavily seasoned with Maoism. Both Stalin and Lenin were great fans of Mussolini in the first 20 years of the 20th Century and adopted wholesale Mussolini’s methods of silencing the opposition. This is why folk today get confused. I am somewhat surprised that Lord Monkton follows the public misconception in this way.
Well, of course the UN wants a New World Order – one in which they actually have the say, see Agenda 21 – and the WBGU wants one – they write so in their grand plan for the Great Transformation; they want one in which they – the scientists who make up the WBGU – have influence on governments decisions without being elected. It’s all written down in their own documents; and the only reason one does not have to develop a phobia is that both the UN and the WBGU are hopelessly incapable of achieving their goals.
I think Lord Monckton was displaying visually what many were already thinking. He’s not wrong, but sometimes it is just better to allow your opponents to make their mistakes (art of war) instead of interrupting them. Now the attention is on him, instead of them.
I do not forgibvehim this ‘excess’, how on earth is it going to persuade anybody on he fence, he is just playing a crowd, for his own amusement/applause.
Monckton is over the top, and just seem to like being a showman a bit too much..
But foremeost he is a politician and behaves like one!
What a complete fool to behave like this, he just by his actions, justifies similar bad behaviour in the other extreme side..
I have little time for anybody that behaves like this.
This just plays into the hands’ of the likes of Bishop Hill’s favourite troll Zedsdeadbed.
Stating that someone has fascist points of view, fine, but why use a Swastika, rather than a Fascisti to illustrate this?
Like the Swastika, the term “fascist” has come to be synonymous with Nazism. However, fascism is a term that has long predated the Nazis, and is not far off when describing the tactics of some of the more rabid adherants to the AGW camp. It is a shame that so much of the language is getting banned and mis-used due to sensitivities. I understand it, as I sure would not want to see a Swastika in my town, but it is sad nevertheless.
Thanks Anthony. I totally agree.
Lord Monckton is being too truthful. He should be more tactful, and certainly should not label a specific individual like that.
However, old Adolf had lots in common with the leftist enviro movement.
# # #
Grumpy Old Man UK, to me they’re all alike: totalitarians at heart.
I agree with the previous comments generally in that there is no need for such a dramatic illustration and it is offensive. However, as Monckton states, he is saying that Garnaut is acting in a ‘fascist’ manner in that he is expecting everyone to accept authority without question. If thats what Garnaut is doing, then he should expect to be exposed as such? But, otherwise, yes, it’s over the top overdramatisation in my opinion. Mind you, wouldn’t it be funny if Garnaut were found out to be a member of some secret neo-fascist organisation?
In Moncktons slight defence, it is necessary sometimes to illustrate the dictatorial attitude of the alarmists/warmists but relating to Nazi style fascism is not the way to do it. As Anthony says, it is much better that the sceptical side remains aloof at all times, even if faced with poor behaviour by the other side!
Escalation is contagious.
I agree that a swastika in a power point presentation is unacceptable, kudos for this posting. However, that pales in comparison to what the other side has done and said about us, including Hansen.
Smokey says @ur momisugly June 22, 2011 at 11:40 am “However, old Adolf had lots in common with the leftist enviro movement.”
So Anthony asks people here not to invoke Godwins Law and you write that? Interesting….
“accept authority without question”
“tattoo those who don’t stand with them”
“would like those who disagree to gas themselves”
It may be too much rhetoric, but it sounds like he’s not so far off. Sounds like Germany around WW2. Of course that is a small subset of them, but it sounds like a lot of the loudest voices on the left have similar opinions.
Stand as a giant amongst pygmies and you will be looked up to;
Get down to their level and you’ll all look the same.
There was some recent advice to the warmists (from a fellow warmist) that they should dump Al Gore.
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/
Personally, I think it’s time for us sceptics to dump Monckton. I don’t know how he comes across to the average person in other parts of the world, but in the UK… I hesitate to finish that sentence on the grounds that I will be snipped.
Perhaps I could put it this way: If I was a warmist in the UK, then I would be encouraging Monckton to speak at every available opportunity. (Ditto James Delingpole, who may be a fine blog writer, but who seems incapable of making an appearance on the TV without utterly mucking things up.)
Dear Anthony,
I appreciate your self-evident effort to be the holiest man among the saints. 😉 It’s not the first time I see it. You always want the skeptics to be the most likable guys, and so on. On the other hand, I think it’s more important to look at the content. And sorry to say – I think that Lord Monckton’s description is pretty much valid. The discussion about Mr Garnaut’s personal plans is legitimate because he is just way too important in Australia and I think that your article has actually discussed these factual matters less deeply and more superficially than Lord Monckton’s speech.
Garnaut’s report wasn’t considered an assault on democracy just by Lord Monckton but even by completely mainstream political leader of Australia, Tony Abbott, see:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/garnaut-report-an-assault-on-democracy/
Garnaut really wants the tax rates etc. to be decided by an unelected junta. It is OK for you to avoid the word “fascism” as a matter of principle and recommend it to WUWT readers but I don’t think you really have the credentials to prevent others – everyone else – from asking and answering the question. Lord Monckton asked the question whether Garnaut’s words and actions may be understood as fascism and he has decided that the answer is Yes. And I understand where Lord Monckton is coming from. Now, I also know that the alarmists would love to link the skeptics to many bad things, including the Nazis, but there’s still a difference. What Lord Monckton says is supported by some facts and tight analogies – actual plans how to reorganize the (Australian) society; what the alarmists are saying is not supported by anything.
More generally, I have found climate skeptics to be frustratingly toothless in many contexts – the “lukewarm” people just got used to the fact that the climate skeptics should normally be kicked into just like the Jews in the Germany of the 1930s because this is the approach that’s prevailing and sold as “normal” – and I consider Lord Monckton to be a refreshing counterexample of a person who shows that the skeptics don’t just offer their other face whenever they’re slapped on the first one – because this is not a path to the victory (and not even dignity) in the real world.
By the way, I forgot to add an appropriate picture of Ross Garnaut:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ross_garnaut.jpg
All the best
Lubos
REPLY: It is certainly valid to compare policies and performance in a historical context where it is merited, Godwin’s law provides for such things:
However, use of the swastika, saying “Heil Hitler”, while at the same time invoking the name of the person does nothing except allow the message to be hijacked. Monckton’s presentation would have the same hijacking problem if he’d put up an image from the horrid goatse.cx.
In my opinion, this is an unnecessary over the top blunder that only gets media shock value traction while pushing the important message into a dark hole. – Anthony