Note to Lord Monckton: this isn’t helping

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.”

About these ads

253 thoughts on “Note to Lord Monckton: this isn’t helping

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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…

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Remember the button? The one used to blow up children who did not join the “Klimate Youth”?

    I think Monckton is being restrained.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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!

  17. 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.

  18. Smokey says @ 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….

  19. “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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.)

  22. 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:

    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:

    Godwin’s law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one’s opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes,or ideology, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

    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

  23. Well, hold on a second… aren’t we “deniers” – the original term meant to be the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers. It seems to me that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    But rather than invoke Godwin’s Law, you have now also invoked the Streisand’s Effect – because I certainly wouldn’t have seen it if you hadn’t published it Anthony.

  24. Yep, he jumped the shark on this one. He has always been an irritating Sot but he has his facts straight.

    You can’t stoop to their level. The real reason WUWT is so popular is the general ebb and flow is mature and respectfull. Trolls are tolerated to a point and shown the door. I doubt Lord Moncton’s behavior would be tolerated here. You will not win in the end if you don’t dial it down Sir.

  25. Well, Lord Mockton has long woven the facscist thread through his speeches and presentations, as when he referred to certain groups at Copenhagen as Hitler Youth. In fact, he rarely concludes any speech without some such allusion. Unfortunately, he now seems to have elevated this meme to such a level that the veracity of any points he is making are immediately destroyed. This is so clearly counterproductive, one wonders how the old sage could have committed such an egregious error.

  26. Yes, I agree with most here that Lord Monkton’sinclusion of the Nazi swastika, or more precisely Nazi Germany’s defunct flag, not mention his strong, aggressive language, are decidedly way over the top. It is insulting to those of us who lost family members in the fight against the Nazis, inaccurate from a factual perspective, and damaging to the skeptics who are already judged by higher and very different standards.

    This stunt by the otherwise admirable Lord will also damage any honest exploration into some unfortunate and worrying similarities between modern environmentalism and that of Nazi Germany, which was the first state to systematically implement environmentalism and animal rights activism on a significant, nation-wide scale. Tarnishing people who either do not know of this dark side of the environmental movement’s history, or who genuinely believe that the connection between environmentalism and National Socialism is unfortunate, but purely coincidental and unrelated to the basic principles, is unfair and counter-productive. But the highest cost will be born by Lord Monckton, who will now find it difficult to shake the “crank” label. I dearly hope that he will quickly recognize his error and take measures to mitigate it.

  27. They’ve been called “econazi’s” for a long time, and for good reason.

    And what does it take to convince you that the alarmists ARE killers?

    They have killed tens of thousands through food riots, and may kill millions via the economic collapse caused by carbon taxes of many kinds.

    It is my considered opinion that the motivation of many of them is in fact, to kill or torture as many people as possible and get away with it, and they are willing to do absolutely anything to wildlife and vegetation to accomplish that.

  28. Hi Anthony!

    At the Swedish Climat Scam I wrote satire of the “humanty on trial” and described it as a opposit “Nûrnberg trial”.
    Behind closed doors the prosecutor made his case and we dont know who or how human kind was defended.
    When Germans with names like Schnelluber Merkel und Goettinger begins to talk about a reduction of human kind global government… I dont know how not to react and make history proof what happens when these kind of thoughts and values is allowed to spread without critisism or opposition.

    For me the tendenses are perfectly fascistic and the authorian signals ant are as well. When you watch “No pressure” the systematic censuship on AGW sites and the ad hominem and attacks on different opinions with “guilty by association” .its time to realize that the movement has very clear fascistic tools apperance and behaviors. That doesnt mean that every AGW believer is a fascist but the movement with its disruption of skeptic meetings “deniarism” and stupid owercooked propaganda.with no acceptance for “different thnkers” like in Sovjet..
    If they are not fascist. and dictorian? Why do they systematicly act like they are? The basics with fascism is that people rulled by it is not to live their lives for their own good but to a purpose formulated by the fascist government the state or as inthe AGW case the “needs of the planet” difnied and formulatet with the monopoly rights to formulate it. So take your bananas out of your ears and realize what the AGW really is and many of its follwers havent undersood what they got in touch with.. Im very sorry Anthony but if it barks like a dog…..

    No pressure

    Attack on B Lomborg.

  29. Robinson says:
    June 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Well, hold on a second… aren’t we “deniers” – the original term meant to be the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers. It seems to me that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    I’d turn that around. I am offended when someone calls me a “denier” (although also encouraged, because it means they have no case to argue), and for exactly that reason (the link to holocaust denial). By the same token we shouldn’t go out of our way to cause offence by using similar terms to describe those who happen to disagree with us.

    Let’s debate the facts, not sink to name-calling.

  30. If the loons who try to order every aspect of my life would have their way, I shan’t even be allowed to call Mussolini a Fascist or Hitler a Nazi. When newspaper columnists intimate that I should be tattooed, or imprisoned or gassed because I heretically oppose their fraudulent, pseudo-scientific conjecture, then calling them merely wrong-headed is not quite strong enough. Sometimes, totalitarians, authoritarians, and all sorts of would-be-aryans have to be called by the right name—and Godwin’s law, surely, does not apply when discussing real, murderous, send-opponents-to-concentration-camps Fascists or Nazis.
    I’d liefer that Lord Monckton not display the svastika but I shall defend to a small degree of inconvenience his right to do so.

  31. Saw it today, Lord Monckton listen and learn.
    You are a voice of reason in a dissparing world, DON”T BLOW IT, are you really on our side.
    Having said that I get really angry that fellow greenies beleive in climate catastrophy, and I loose it. I think we all have that in common. Fair go he is virtually alone in this battle yes battle for sanity. Am, I -is he -all of us going mad with fustration.
    Yes. This is having an emotional toll on people who want a GREAT future for the earth and humans living apon it.
    A world in which every person can say I,m OK.

  32. “Well, hold on a second… aren’t we “deniers” – the original term meant to be the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers. It seems to me that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” (Robinson)

    Well, not really, the goose is much more vulnerable to slander, has fewer resources in her arsenal and, more importantly, must maintain integrity for no other reason than that it is simply the right thing to do.

  33. Anthony, the only times you yelled at me on this blog, I deserved it!

    Regarding Monkton, I agree, we shouldn’t interrupt our enemies when they are in the process of destroying themselves. Let’s just send ‘em more rope.

  34. While the rhetoric can get extremely heated at times in this particular case I will defend Lord Monckton. Many have said stick to the science – that’s great if this were even close to an equal playing field – but this is not an equal playing field. This is a field dominated by the leftists/AGW mafia and their leftists media who own the playing field. The “science” is and has been lost in the leftists rhetoric combined with science organizations themselves incredible failure to even attempt to censure junk science what so ever – it is not unusual for one such as Lord Monckton to play on the exact same field with the same language as the players involved.

    No doubt Nazi has been thrown about by both elected public officials/teacher’s unions, the warmest camp, etc., etc., all to often with no media or public condemnation equally delivered. Leftists get a pass while those on the opposite side get censured. This then is the hypocritical world we on this side exist in – we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

    Was it over the top? To me NO! Lord Monckton served notice in no uncertain terms he will not be cowered by the talking heads wishing to gas those who disagree with them. He will not go silently into that good night – Lord Monckton came to play hardball and I for one will stand with this fine man. The difference being Lord Monckton is fully capable of walking the walk on science unlike the vast majority of the AGW believers. And when you have leftists newspapers with a lying leftist Australian government deliberately lying to its own people it is doubtful Lord Monckton would have gotten a mention on pages 32 of the leftists newspapers had he not fired back both barrels. And least anyone forgets the vast majority of Australians are firmly on Lord Monckton’s side in this matter. Over the top? Not if you live in Australia it isn’t! At the end of the day Lord Monckton stood up for the vast majority of Australians who were voiceless!

  35. Most of the heat associated with Global Warming/Climate Change/Disruption comes from discussions–heated to the point of boiling. THAT’s the TRUE tipping point! Someday some group is going to grab some weapons and use them on their adversary, all while the earth just keeps spinning along doing what it has always done.

    Stay the moral high ground, resort not to violence, and keep posting those inconvient (for the AGW crowd) facts and figures and we’ll win this war without a physical fight. (From the looks of the rhetoric and threats from the AGW acolytes, I’d say we’re winning.)

  36. Yeah, Monkton went over the top. I’ve always felt that he was at times a bit too vitriolic for polite debate. He has poisoned himself with this Nazi hyperbole and is now at the level of Gore. Too bad, because he actually understands some of the science unlike the Goreacle.

  37. Anthony
    What if Monckton’s characterization of Garnaut is the most accurate one?

    Definition of FASCISM
    1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
    — fas·cist noun or adjective often capitalized
    — fas·cis·tic adjective often capitalized
    — fas·cis·ti·cal·ly adverb often capitalized. . .

    Merriam-Webster Online

    Compare Garnaut’s recommendations in the Garnaut Climate Change Review

    The 2008 Review recommended that, in the absence of an effective global agreement, Australia should introduce an emissions trading scheme geared to what others were doing but begin with a fixed price period. We would then be ready to define a target and to float the emissions permit price at some later time, when there were clear rules and opportunities for international trade in permit. . . .

    The Carbon Price

    Australia has had an unconditional target since 2008 to reduce emissions by at least 5 per cent by 2020 (relative to 2000 levels).. . .
    A firm target for reductions of emissions over time will need to be established in advance of the movement to a floating permit price. Australia’s current unconditional target for 2020 would be the legislated minimum emissions reduction target.

    5 Correcting the great failure
    The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 finds global warming mitigation ranks dead last in terms of cost effectiveness for the 30 greatest global humanitarian projects.
    Contrast:

    A poll taken earlier this month revealed that almost 60 percent of Australians opposed the so-called “carbon tax.” Just 28 percent were in favor of the scheme, with the rest undecided. Close to 75 percent of those polled believed the government’s plan would leave them worse off financially while offering little or no benefit to the environment.

    Poll: Australian “Carbon Tax” Wildly Unpopular TUESDAY, 07 JUNE 2011 14:29
    Prof. Garaut’s recommendation to impose a carbon tax and then cap and trade appears to be “wildly unpopular” and judged very poor economics by others. Yet he seeks to have it imposed by a centralized autocratic government with severe economic and social regimentation. That seems to me to fit the definition of “fascist”.

    While there is strong political opposition to its use and while there is political uproar over other’s actions, is that justification for not using an accurate term?

  38. Quite rare are the times
    when you may think as you like
    and speak as you think—

    so Tacitus said,
    and I, for one, will attempt
    to maintain that link

    between thought, speech and
    the freedom of expression
    lest all freedoms shrink.

  39. The green shirts has advocated:
    tattooing us
    putting us on trial
    putting us in re-education (concentration) camps
    blowing us up with the red button
    alluded to knowing where we live.

    These ARE Nazi like tactics!
    And they call us climate “deniers”. That is why I am now calling them green shirts

    Thanks
    JK

  40. Well, it just so happens that I came across the “Monckton bunkum” part 1 – 5 series on Youtube today. I never understood why this site and its audience holds him in such high esteem — do watch it and then come back and tell me you buy any of his BS at all. I certainly would not give him a public forum if I were running a website.

    Some of the points raised in the above mentioned series were always glaringly obvious to me, without having to do any research on Monckton at all. Even as a casual reader/viewer I had noticed, that he will keep recycling stuff he had been called out on and debunked for in the past. That of course is no accident on his behalf. And his painfully lenghty rebuttals which have been posted here in the past didn’t have much meat and are actually in many ways not befitting to any serious party to an allegedly academic debate.

  41. Roughly a year ago I posted right here about my concerns over getting too close to Monkton. I was roundly criticised for it. Maybe you are surprised by his latest excess, but the signs were there for all to see. He makes good sense when he isn’t being a nut job. Unfortunately this is politics; you can’t keep company with anyone who is not reliable.

  42. Even if Monckton made his case, the use of “Nazi” as an epithet has become such a cliche that it’s probably better not to make the analogy directly. Under the present circumstances it has to sound like more of the same. Better to detail the threats to liberty, clash with democratic values, etc.

  43. Sorry dbs – I didn’ see that word in the text (and I do look to make sure it isn’t there) but apologize if I missed it. I’ve used text from that reference here gets the point across.

    Scott Covert says @ June 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm “He has always been an irritating Sot but he has his facts straight.”

    Your assertion that he has “his facts straight” is non-factual;

    “I wrote to these authors and I read their papers. It turned out that none of the authors or papers made the claims that Monckton attributed to them. This pattern of misinterpretation was becoming chronic.”

    Full response here;

    http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

  44. Monckton has a particular sense of humor. I think he has merely re-applied it here. Should be seen in the context of the talk he gave. IM sure most people just laughed at the suggestion (at the talk).

  45. He will shape up and admit his digressions superbly I,m POSITIVE. I do.-most times hhmm. What i want to see is an apology at the right time and him asking for the same from prominant Austalians who have also crossed the line. Well done Christopher. cheers all round. Oh and naming them.
    Get his PR onto it pronto.

  46. Hmm, this is interesting. Lets contrast what Lord Monckton is saying what some politicians and environmentalist want to what some of the politicians and environmentalists right here in the United States are actually doing:

    Green literacy new graduation requirement in MD

    Maryland public school students will need to know their green to graduate under a new policy adopted today by the state board of education.

    State officials and environmental activists called the vote “historic” and said Maryland has become the first state in the nation to require environmental literacy to graduate from high school. Under the rule, public schools will be required to work lessons about conservation, smart growth and the health of our natural world into their core subjects like science and social studies.

    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2011/06/green_literacy_new_graduation.html

    Nope there is nothing like how the Nazi’s propagandized their youth going on by politicians and environmentalists. Yep your right, Monckton shouldn’t be calling these square bladed digging instruments spades since the description doesn’t fit the word.

  47. ad hominem attacks do not advance any cause, and I believe it actually detracts from any legitimate factual evidence a cause may have. While I understand wanting to show parallels between an opponent’s position and other failed theories, doing so with Nazism is counter productive in the extreme. Unless or until some parallels can be drawn with the outright murder of 6 million people, not to mention the brutal deaths of many millions more due to aggressive warfare, there is no place for this comparison.

    If you want to compare Idi Amin to Hitler, fine. But Australian leaders and journalists are not in this class, and making this comparison cheapens the debate, dilutes the factual evidence, and gives the opponent a legitimate complaint to discredit skeptics. The Aussie leaders may be deluded, but they do not come near to the evil that Hitler represented.

    Thank you Anthony for being the voice of reason.

  48. Anthony.
    I am in most cases in agreement with you. BUT in Australia today you see the Radical leftist lying Labor government doing everything they can to undermine Australian democracy with demigod propaganda.
    Promoting and encouraging Editorial threats of tattooing or gassing Skeptics, then pretending it was a joke, just like the 10.10 ultra-Violante blow up the sceptics video – This is exactly what happened in Hitler’s socialist Germany and Stalin’s Communist USSR. Lord Monkton was simply showing the similarities. I fear many of your commentator’s are not looking at the context of his comparison.

    Ross Garnet is an viscous, abusive, arrogant SOB who has a nasty habit of the worst kind of put downs, much like a lot of the present Labour government, who treat people with derision and scorn who dare to oppose them.

    Finally:

    It seems to be poorly understood that Hitler was an extreme Socialist and like all Socialist they want everybody else to bear the pain, they will simply oversee it and be rewarded for their foresight!

    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

    (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

  49. Agreed: Moncton should stick to facts. References to Nazism are neither helpful nor representative of the warmist opinions – except for those in the uniforms and parading on Herr H’s birthday.

    This entire post and comments should be forwarded to him.

    When a person resorts to such ad hominem attacks, one may well question whether it is science, philosophy or truth that he is defending, or whether he is just a bitter person who found a soap box and a place in Hyde Park.

  50. The threats of tattoo’s, re-education camps and public witch trials aside, the AGW camp having lost the argument(s) seem to be successfully luring the skeptical side into their arena of petty malice.
    Why Monckton felt compelled to add rhetoric to a reasonable argument, seems either unusually clumsy and out of character, or he experienced an uncommon (for him) brain fart.
    While there is an autocratic element to Green policy, it should be demonstrated as unsavory on it’s own merits (and lack of them), historical reference is unneeded. The Nazi trope is an unusually lazy dig by Monckton, beyond pointing out the obvious flaws in AGW theory, he’s well off message.
    What the he’ll is going on? This is most unhelpful.

  51. We need to take the high ground in this debate. We must be squeaky clean, after all, that’s what we are demanding from the Warmists.

    Lord Monckton has undermined that. He should be torn a new arse, and really dragged over the coals, publicly. But then we should let him right back in, because Forgiveness is Divine!

    I often ask why ot is that Warmists feel the need to use name calling, and it’s a useful argument. That has been diluted and I’m really, really disappointed.

  52. I note the above earlier comment by Lubos Motl and the reply from Anthony. I enjoy both blogs and I greatly respect the content of both. However, these blogs play different roles, WUWT gives an important face of skeptics to the world at large while the raw, unfiltered outpourings from the brilliant mind of Lubos provide that cold slap in the face we all need to somehow stay sane.

  53. Me personally? I would not have used the Nazi reference, however I’m going to give Monckton some credit for political smarts and good strategy and here is why.
    Recently in particular, alarmists have made some appalling statements in attacking sceptics (WUWT has listed some, such as “gas yourselves” and “tattoo sceptics”) at the height of the Carbon Tax debate here in Australia. NONE OF THE MSM HAVE CALLED OUT THESE ALARMISTS FOR IT.
    Now that Monckton has used the same tactic, watch these alarmists hit him with everything bar the kitchen sink, but when they do, they themselves will no longer be able to use these tactics without being seen for what they are, hypocritical a-holes.

    In fact, what Monckton has done is FORCE the debate to a higher level by taking all the flack himself and I for one thank him for it.

    “That’s not a knife…this is a knife”

  54. When your opposition regularly operates from the gutter it is sometimes necessary to sink to their level if only to remind them, and everybody else, that they are in the gutter. The alternative is that the one-sided gutter politics usually wins, as we have seen to our cost with CO2 based CAGW fascism so far…

    The original meaning of fascism – one way – predates the Nazis, can be applied to left or right wing politics and/or belief systems, and should not cause offence… So does the swastika – the original form was, and still is, a Hindu symbol of peace and it should not cause offence. The Nazi swastika points to the right while the original Hindu version points to the left – though I’m not sure how many people ever bothered to find out…

    The question is – do you want to be trampled all over in perpetuity or do you want somebody to stand up and kick back once in a while? You can’t fight anti-science with science, you can’t fight fascism with reason, and you can’t fight politicians with democracy because they do as they like once elected. Attack is a good form of defence. Sometimes you’ve just got to be as obnoxious as your opposition… As long as the tactic remains the exception and does not become the norm then I don’t have a problem with it…

  55. Comment window has changed since the last time I commented here at WUWT. I don’t see a “waiting for moderation” so I assume my attempted comment has gone to the never never. I’ll try a shorter version.

    I give Monckton credit for a superb strategy. The CO2 Tax debate here in Oz was getting out of hand with even government ministers and public servants having a go at sceptics.
    The alarmists will not resist hitting Monckton with everything but the kitchen sink over this one. But when they do, they themselves will no longer be able to make statements such as “tattoo sceptics” or “gas yourselves”.

    Monckton has taken all the flack himself, but in doing so has forced the debate to a higher level and I for one thank him for it.

  56. I just think that many people who question what is actually happening (skeptics) are getting mad and tired of the alarmists “jokes” about killing, gasing, and murdering skeptics. Altough i dont agree with this particular thing Lord Mockton did i understand why .

  57. As far as I’m concerned, Mussolini’s fascism and the National Socialist Germany Workers (Nazi) Party in Germany was right-wing communism that stressed nationalism (the superiority of its peoples over all others) rather than global socialism—the ideological difference that eventually pitted the Nazis against the Soviets.

  58. I don’t think Monckton is an ideal spokesman for the anti-AGW movement and if he sees himself as that then he is no better than Al Gore. In many ways I partly agree with him. I have been accused of being impolite over at the Bishop’s house because I write what I think but I think like a Physicists and a Business management expert. When you stand in front of the management board of a large-ish company and know that they are being stupid there is little point in being polite. You will loose your head and be dumped outside if you are ‘soft’ and touchy touchy, feely feely. Brusque and direct is OK by me but calling someone a fachist or a nazi is just pure ad hom. Stupid, incompetent, lacking in scientific integrity, liar are all fine be my if you have the evidence, concrete evidence. Chris M is too loose and not scientifically cognisent to call others fachists and nazis. He must stick to the facts or fail BUT we can’t afford for him to fail it provides too much ammo for religious crowd.

  59. Anthony,

    I honor your wishes not to talk here on WUWT extremely/explicitly about how the policies and tactics promoted by advocates of IPCC AGW and/or ideological environmentalism may actually parallel what happened in Germany in the 1930’s and early 1940’s.

    Having said that, if any given person sees strong and documented parallels between present day instances of countries implementing the IPCC climate science agenda and Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s then they should be given free expression to show their case . . . . if not here on WUWT (per your request) then I am sure they will find many many other open venues.

    A major contributing part of what happened in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s was the lack of general citizens in Germany and Europe speaking out against what they saw happening which they knew was terribly wrong.

    All it takes for it to happen again now in some country is for normal citizens to not speak out, to remain silent when they know something is terribly wrong.

    Although I may sometimes be annoyed by Monckton’s style, I give him great credit for being fearless about saying what he thinks in a way that is totally unequivocal. Of course the unbalanced MSM will use it against him and skeptics in general. That is a given. What would be tragic is for people not to say what they think is terribly wrong just because the press will attack them for it; if we do that then we have already lost the argument by silence.

    Anthony – I continue to be a strong supporter of your WUWT.

    John

  60. Sean Peake
    June 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm
    ###

    That point of view only works from within the straight jacket of Marxist political theory. I.e. the left-right dichotomy is an invalid construct created by socialist to remap all positions as just one version of socialism versus another. Left and right are really the ends of the socialist spectrum.

  61. “Nobody has ever won an argument by invoking Godwins Law.”

    Unless they are arguing that Hitler was not a very nice man. Or they could be judging a Hitler look alike competition and arguing about who is the most like Hitler?

    On a very serious note, Godwin’s law certainly has its place. Every year of my life there has been a remembrance Sunday. Every year we are warned to never forget, lest our generation, or future generations make the same mistakes. How the hell are we supposed to avoid making such mistakes if it becomes unacceptable to warn people when authoritarian control freaks start advocating using the same tactics as Hitler? Seriously? When some alarmists genuinely want to tattoo, imprison and even gas “disbelievers”, why the hell can we NOT draw the obvious comparison and invoke Godwin’s law?

    REPLY: Because to my knowledge, Garnaut did not say any of those things, others did. Monckton could have made valid comparisons in context of history/policy (if they exist) without the need for displaying a swastika or saying “Heil Hitler”. All he has done is hijack his own presentation and given the media and blog a tool to beat him over the head with. – Anthony

  62. Just like the Republicans have tried to take the high road, in most cases, when dealing with dirty tricks from the Democrats; skeptics have kept their contributions relatively clean. But sometimes you have to crawl down into the muck and grapple with the enemy on his own terms. It’s a dirty business, but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary.

  63. Hi Anthony,

    I agree that using the swastika is WAY over the top. Yet, the fact remains that some AGW-fanatics do wish the worst for skeptics, and in some cases even wish to wipe them out.

    Maybe you can add a new category, sub to climatefails orso, with unappropriate proposals against skeptics. What Monckton tries to do is show the public the sinister side of AGW. But maybe showing the facts will do a better job than name-calling. (Btw, I’m not a saint myself, I’ve used ecof****** lots of times, sry, but at times I get so angry that I cannot stay calm.)

    Anyway, thanks for your relentless efforts in this epic battle of science vs. mythology.
    Reason WILL conquer superstition and ignorance.

    Kind regards,
    Scarface

  64. “Given the recent elevated rhetoric in Australia, the claims of death threats, and the media suggestions of skeptics getting tattooed and gassed…”

    “Skeptics getting tattooed and gassed” – has Ross Garnaut personally expressed a desire for this (or a similar) “solution?” Because if not, then Lord Monckton’s attack is unwarranted.

  65. @DesertYote, agreed. I couldn’t think of a distinctive (memorable) label for the middle of the road socialist except for, you know, socialist. I’m sure you have better examples but I never really paid attention to them… until just recently.

  66. You can’t confront modern fascist movements without being honest about what they are. Unfortunately in the case of eco-fascism they and their socio-fascist political bretheren have framed the debate in such a way as to label anyone who correctly calls them fascists as being . . . well, fascists.

    Very strange, but true.

  67. I find it a sign of Human special immaturity that the swastika is still regarded so. Humans kill humans, we have done this since caveman days. We’re brutal and stupid and prone to being deceived into committing horrific acts. Civilization gives us hope that we can do better, but we shouldn’t ever forget or pretend like we’re anything far above that which migrated out of Africa.

    Nazis happened, and this is of course hard for people to accept, but without a large change in human nature their ilk will happen again. We shouldn’t be so afraid of ourselves that we pretend the worst parts of us don’t exist, that makes it easier to forget and let it happen again.

    In short, I disagree with you on this one Anthony, and I expressed as much in the other thread.

  68. Monckton has a sound grasp of the anti-AGW case. But too often I find his presentation of it arrogant and irritating. This time I find it disgusting. A dreadful error of judgement.

  69. There is one thing that goes through my mind… a striking similarity. You know, the German Nazis were economically challenged. They fixed prices for everything, with the obvious consequence of empty store shelves and a thriving black market long before WW2 started. This exacerbated economic decline, which they countered with forced labor (the Deutsche Arbeitsfront), building a huge White Elephant project, the German Autobahn grid, without much heavy machinery and a lot of moving worker tent camps, 1,000 km of Autobahn a year, but no traffic on them. And other Keynesian projects like digging holes (literally – they let workers dig out holes to create seas for recreational purposes). They later topped it off with a wholesale conversion of the entire economy to a wartime command economy.

    Similarly, todays (mostly European) AGW politics consist of price fixing for carbon emissions and for electricity (via feed in tariff cross subsidies), and the building of a huge White Elephant – wind turbines and PV plants that don’t do much for energy production but keep some hands busy. So that’s phase 1. Will phase 2 be the wholesale conversion of the economy into a wartime command economy? Remember that warmists love to use the war metaphor – Salon has a “War Room”, Richard Branson has his climate war room website… maybe we should call them WARmists…

  70. My … How must not Marx, Engels, Hegel & al. and their masters shiver by delight over this thread!

  71. Sean Peake says:
    June 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm
    “As far as I’m concerned, Mussolini’s fascism and the National Socialist Germany Workers (Nazi) Party in Germany was right-wing communism that stressed nationalism (the superiority of its peoples over all others) rather than global socialism—the ideological difference that eventually pitted the Nazis against the Soviets.”

    Well… If you annex one country after the other at some point it becomes global… (which was what Hitler layed out in Mein Kampf which he wrote long before gaining the power, so WW2 was exactly not a surprise). Stalin, BTW, did not try to enforce global socialism – the idea of Stalinism, as opposed to Trotzkism, is that socialism in one country is already so superior to capitalism that it will automatically prevail. Trotzki on the other hand was convinced of the need for a global revolution; maybe so that the ensuing global socialism could get rid of the need for a standing army, an idea that was shared by H.G. Wells. (Don’t know which of these two had the idea first; maybe it was just one meme that was around at that time)

  72. Yes, I think that we can all agree that Monckton’s comparisons to Nazis are over the top. Let’s just stick to our regular comparisons of people who think that GW might be A to Stalin or other fascists.

  73. Hey – what’s the big deal about the use of a Swastika? Why all this political correctness, Anthony?

  74. Shame on you Lord Monckton ! Bad boy!

    Apologize, say 5 Hail Marys, Get back to work… try to do better in the future!

    Nuff said! GK

  75. The fact is, Nazis exterminated a few million people. The greens think the world is overpopulated by six or seven billion and are planning to do something about that. Who is worse?

  76. I’d call the EPA’s findings on endangerment and the developing plans for regulating power production a scary mix of Millerism and the worst kind of Red Chinese central planning with a group of followers as wrongheaded as the Luddites. Making a comparison with the Nazis involves wickedness and ruthlessness far beyond the capability of the liberals of this era – although some of the pronouncements of Hansen suggest the way things could be heading. His declarations regarding high crimes against humanity on the part coal executives convince me that given the right circumstances he would happily oversee a Reign of Terror. Furthermore, post Hitler Nazism is a space already well filled with kooks like George Lincoln Rockwell, so it’s a mistake to try to shoehorn this professor into that spot.

  77. On second thought, maybe using a Swastika is a bad idea. Now that I’ve read the general consensus here, maybe it is over the top. Maybe we should just all stick to comparing people that think that GW might be A to Stalinists and other fascists, like we usually do.

  78. Luboš Motl says:
    June 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Mr Motl,
    You an me live in the countries which were occupied by Hitler GERMANY and Stalinist SOVIET RUSSIA (to American readers – now Czech (then Czechoslovakia) and Poland respectively).

    I do not understand why educated Americans cannot see (not – do not see, just CANNOT) that being thrown to the fringes of society (e.g. losing good jobs) only because one had temerity to express publicly his own opinion, is the modern way of “concentration camps” of the past.

    No one has to set up the camps today, it suffices to ostracized sort of “deniers” in most harshest way, namely economical. That’s only one example what is going on. What is being proposed by followers of AGW Church goes much further, with annihilation of opponents.

    But to see that analogy one to has live a life free from political correctness breath on his back with real and painful consequences (as in America today).

    Mr Watts, I totally disagree with you and your “frustratingly toothless in many context” attitude, as Mr Motl was so kind to unequivocally observe.

    Best regards
    Przemysław Pawełczyk

    P.S. Emoticons and signature used by Mr Motl suggest he was in more relaxed mood writing his comment. I’m not, I am dead serious.

  79. You know, maybe using the Swastika is over the top. But some AGWers have made nasty comments about skeptics. If there’s one think I learned as a kid, it was that when I whined to my mommy that “They did it first,” she always took my side and overlooked my bad behavior.

    This thread is spectacularly hilarious.

  80. Yeah – using a Swastika was definitely really bad. I think that instead, Monckton should have stuck to comparing environmentalists to Eugenicists, like Lindzen has done.

  81. Per Sun Tzu:

    “To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.”
    “One defends when his strength is inadaquate, he attacks when it is abundant.”
    “And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.”
    “If you know your enemy and you know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself you will succumb in every battle.”

  82. Wait for it, wait for it, wait for the crazed climate communist hippie parade’s tin foil hat soldiers, supported by the violent pacifist-anti-fascisti-anti-corporate troopers, with the the anti-g8 greenpeazers in reserve, are all running around defending the “deer” old Garnaut.

    It’ll be so hilarious when they’re all running around noticing it’s their own feet they’re blowing to smithereens, as they find out he’s a corporate man, a G8 man, a trilateral (“death ray hurling”) Bilderberger dude. LMAO satire. :p

  83. Spot on! Invoking Nazi’s never helped one’s cause. In fact, I think the term ‘denier’ brings up the same kind of connotation and is actually harmful to the AGW cause. It detracts from facts and true discussions.

  84. Lord Monckton i believe, knows what he is doing,his mission is to expose the move towards a “world government”.
    He understands that climate change is being used as the tool to achieve that aim.
    He also knows that the people that are now venting their offence over this have more than likely already made up their minds on where they stand on the issue.
    However his retoric will gain attention from a lot of people and many of those will not be offended with his nazi
    comparisons,it may even make some of them think about the subject more.
    Those that are offended will get over it,i get offended many times a day, but i would rather be offended than punched in the face.
    Its dirty work i agree,but does that mean it shouldnt be done when its important?

  85. Monckton is to warmists/skepics as Palin is to democrats/republicans
    He “fires up the base” but doesn’t win over any independents

  86. I can’t resist another go at this topic. While the opinions here are diverse in and of themselves this is a fight to the finish. Some here condemn Lord Monckton for his approach other like myself do not when taken in its intended context re: Australia and it increasingly nasty fight over carbon tax that 60% of Australians oppose.

    None of us here get to choose who fights this battle on either side – the individuals decide for themselves where they wish to come down for a multitude of reasons to many to name here. Mr Watts has chosen the high road and I will respect that on this blog. However much we may agree or disagree on any particular topic the AGW battle is worldwide with worldwide players. The scenes range from downright nasty to discussions based on the sciences as attempted here. Both sides have players immersed at every level of this global struggle with trillion of dollars at stake and perhaps the fate of nations thrown into the mix. Entire industries have taken sides while other industries are singled out for extinction. This isn’t small potatoes. Governments can rise and fall on the outcomes. This is global and the sakes are enormous.

    Emotions are very high and like it or not those of us on this side have players willing to mix it up down in the gutter exactly where they find AGW believers. I easily swing within both worlds.

  87. This is so funny. Of all the scientific topics on this blog there are lots of replies/posts explaining the finer points or just the science behind the topic. Hardly any views from Warmists, no replies to the mis use of data, the increase in sea ice, the decrease in global temperatures, the errors of the IPCC, the corruption of the green “charities”,

    Nothing.

    But I see “Lord Monckton” in the title all of the trolls appear. Its like thay have a network telling them what to say. Trolls? No, Sheep. From the cult of AGW.

    When you see some criticism by the warmists of Monckton (or others), ask them about the errors in the IPCC reports. Or maybe about the failure of Climate models/predictions. Or about Pal review. Or many other things.

    BUT. I will bet they will come back with a reply which has nothing to do with your question, and maybe even posing a question to you.

    I agree with Lord Monckton. And I believe he was correct in everything he said. Even if the showing of some distasteful images offends some people, his analogy stands. Telling us that it is all down to Godwin’s law is incorrect. The warmists HAVE followed the path where such analogies are pertinent.

  88. I am upset with Monckton using images such as the Nazi swastika or the phrase “heil Hitler” in his attack on Ross Garnaut, and I certainly hope he eliminates this from his Australian tour. Monckton cannot help the sceptic cause like this.

    That said, Ross Garnaut is a venal and mendacious individual who deserves the unrelenting scorn of millions of Australians for the rest of his sorry existence. Garnaut knowingly lied to the Australian people in support of a carbon dioxide tax that the government has no mandate for. He has accepted significant amounts of tax payers money to lie. He has advocated an unelected committee to control a tax that the citizens are not allowed to have a vote on, so that the citizens have no defence against his lies.

    I do not approve of Monckton’s use of Nazi imagery in his attack on Garnaut. However If Monckton was to refer to Garnaut as undemocratic, fascist, venal, greedy, mendacious, unethical, amoral, scientifically illiterate, arrogant, elitist, egotistical and stupid, I would have no problem with that.

  89. Before we all start throwing rocks at our good friend Christopher Monckton, I’d have to see the context in which things were stated. I’ve read an article and saw a 1 1/2 minute news story. As far as invoking Godwins Law, as some of the other readers have pointed out, the alarmists beat Monckton to it by a few years. As to the one bit of context that I can see, blindly accepting authority with out question, fascism does fit, but I prefer totalitarianism, I wouldn’t want our commie friends to feel left out when expressing my disgust.

    But, in retrospect, if one wanted to distinguish other totalitarians, one could simply state totalitarian socialist and in that manner one could be including the fascists and communists. And then, if you wrap them in a nice green blanket, you can call them alarmists or warmistas or what ever…..as long as the contempt is properly shown, which, I believe Monckton did adequately express, but it may be beyond people’s sensitivities.

  90. Trolls? What trolls?

    I’ve been here before, Roy. But I have to admit, this thread is an absolute gem.

    The “Mommy, mommy, they did it first” posts are my favorites.

    That said, Kudos to Anthony for putting up the post. I hope he’s looking closely at what kinds of people read his website.

  91. Elaborating on my previous: When does the talking stop, and the bleeding begin? That is where this will ultimately end up.

  92. Joshua
    Perhaps you may want to enlighten the rest of us on what exactly do you mean when you say the kind of people who read this website? BTW, those who “read” Mr Watts pubic website is indeed open to the public. Mr Watts himself has made his position very clear – which I respect – and can in no way be responsible for the public “reading” his website.

  93. Anthony is entirely correct. AGW skeptics can engage in respectful arguments with global warming alarmists without resorting to the same scare tactics as they do.

  94. Occasionally, someone will ask what Anthony will do when the climate wars are won. The answer is that the climate wars are one front in a much larger war. Yes, our opponents are communists rather than Nazis and showing a Nazi flag is an over-the-top tactic, but none of this changes the fact that we are in the trenches in a war for our civilization that is no less important than WWII or the Cold War. So, yes, I agree that Monckton should remove the powerpoint of the Nazi flag. However, we must never forget that our opponents would use greenhouse gas regulations, among other things, to enslave us just as completely as Stalin enslaved the Soviet Union.

  95. I’ve always felt that Monckton is in the “with friends like that …” category. He’ll never win any hearts and probably represents the archetype of a climate denier in the minds of CAGW believers. He’s very entertaining though.

  96. Roy UK says:
    June 22, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    “But I see “Lord Monckton” in the title all of the trolls appear. Its like thay have a network telling them what to say. Trolls? No, Sheep. From the cult of AGW.”

    They do, and they are being sent here.

    http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

    CACC – Campaign against Climate Change
    (A bit like, ahem, Röhm’s SA – pardon the comparison…)

  97. Sorry Anthony,
    You are of course free to do that, but please remenber what he has gone through and cut him some slack.
    Lord Monckton is out there fighting the good fight, I will not try to second-guess his tactics.

  98. Swastikas never look good in the background of one’s image. It could be used against you. ;O)

  99. Adam Gallon says:

    “… but why use a Swastika, rather than a Fascisti to illustrate this?”

    Good question. Either way, National Socialism is National Socialism.

    By the way, ever look at the obverse of a U.S. Mercury Dime? (1916-1945) (Fasces)

  100. James Sexton says:
    June 22, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Before we all start throwing rocks at our good friend Christopher Monckton …

    I’d just like to say, for the record: I don’t have any friends, and I don’t want any. I’m only interested in the science.

  101. Joshua says:
    June 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    That said, Kudos to Anthony for putting up the post. I hope he’s looking closely at what kinds of people read his website.
    =====================================================================
    I’ll take these people over the Malthusian misanthropists with a totalitarian bent, fixated on killing to the point of creating snuff films, advising tattooing/branding and suggesting suicide to people with opposing points of views, any day.

    How about you Josh? Are you particular about the company you keep or associate with? Or the people you identify with?

  102. Christopher Monkton is human. In defence of free speech he is entitled to say what he wishes. (For a while anyway, until that right is taken away too as it may well be here in Australia). His action in diplaying the swastika may have been politically ill advised or it may have been a stroke of genius. Only time will tell that story. As someone who according to some public commenters here in Australia should be ‘gassed’ and or have a ‘number tattooed’ on me, I do not object in the least to Christopher Monkton’s action. If this brings the debate about the use of Htiler and Nazism to a head whereby both sides are unable to use it, then that is a good thing. We can then go back to talking about the science.

  103. Baa Humbug says:
    June 22, 2011 at 1:10 pm (Edit)
    Me personally? I would not have used the Nazi reference, however I’m going to give Monckton some credit for political smarts and good strategy and here is why.
    Recently in particular, alarmists have made some appalling statements in attacking sceptics (WUWT has listed some, such as “gas yourselves” and “tattoo sceptics”) at the height of the Carbon Tax debate here in Australia. NONE OF THE MSM HAVE CALLED OUT THESE ALARMISTS FOR IT.
    Now that Monckton has used the same tactic, watch these alarmists hit him with everything bar the kitchen sink, but when they do, they themselves will no longer be able to use these tactics without being seen for what they are, hypocritical a-holes.

    In fact, what Monckton has done is FORCE the debate to a higher level by taking all the flack himself and I for one thank him for it.

    “That’s not a knife…this is a knife”

    Listen to the Australian. He knows his country and his countrymen.
    Monckton is a skilled orator. He knows how to pitch his stuff to the audience.
    I’d have to see video of the event before I’d pass judgment.

  104. In full agreement. Monckton is an answer to a prayer of the carbonistas who are losing the political debate. His self indulgent immature grandstanding will be used to discredit the science of climate realism. We dont need Monckton here as he is projects the image of an elitist english toff telling us colonials what we should think. Doesnt go well in Australia. Far better value in getting Linzden (if that is possible) over here quickly.

  105. This time you are wrong, Mr. Watts.
    Eco-fascists are eco-fascists, that’s their proper name, and they should be called as such as often as possible.
    If anything, Lord Monckton has been too restrained.

    We’ve been too polite for too long with liars and thieves who already control the globe and are enslaving us more and more every day. Glad to see that many of the regular visitors of your site did not follow you in this attempt to make piece with monsters.

    Understandably, people of Ira Glickstein’s ilk would enthusiastically support you in this, as they would enthusiastically exploit any weakness in their opponents — but we all know by now, who they really are, and what they really want here.

  106. Mark-london says:
    June 22, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    Lord Monckton i believe, knows what he is doing,his mission is to expose the move towards a “world government”.

    _____

    Really? Really?? C’mon.

    The good Lord Monckton is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy off base on this one, and both sides need to tone down this kind of nonsense. Nice of you to call him on it Anthony.

  107. The problem I see with alot of ppl including sadly the OP is that they invoke Godwin’s Law wrongly and in an attempt to belittle rational and factual based arguments. Most of all when it comes to the hypocrisy and similarity of one groups actions next to hilter’s.

    To put it simply ppl evoke godwin because when they are losing a debated based on facts much like they claim racism, denier, heretic or any of a host or other terms they need to shift the topic and attack the speaker instead of the argument.

    Another problem is that most ppl know very little about hitler pre-1939 or 1936. They have no idea what hitler’s campaign platforms were, his speeches were about, how he got into power, along with a host of other things. Hitler was still hitler before he started throwing jews in ovens… The vast majority of times(a good 95%) of when ppl evoke godwin is when ppl try to argument historic in the pre-1936 hitler and dealing with how hitler managed to get power, what he really stood for, among other things… which appear to be the case here.

    Once again to put simply hitlers run up to power wasn’t just “Hey i’m hitler elect me”, *elected* “ok lets get those jews in those ovens”. Much of hitler’s tactics and ideology is the same is what the eco-terrorists and global warming cultists use today. This is mostly due to the fact they share similar ideology in collectivism. “Science” was a huge helper in hilters move to throw jews in ovens putting up many studies to support the “jews must be placed in ovens” argument. Eugenics which eco-terrorists and global cooling/warming/etc cultist still believe in and openly endorsed even in the late 70s is a cornerstone of both hitlers and eco-terror/global cooling/warming/etc ideology. To overlook reality because its “inconvenient” and my get you called “over the top” or “rhetorical suicide” is a bit much. One of the man reasons that hitler along with many would be dictators are successful is by changing reality where sane factual arguments suddenly because “over the top” or “rhetorical suicide”. They pray on the weak minded that refuse to call a spade and spade… it is how they gain power and why they are able to become dictators in the first place.

    To say that the global warming movement is NOT based in eugenics and many of its sub-ideologies(to include nazism) is far more “over the top” and “rhetorical suicide” then to say its similar to nazism.

  108. James Sexton says @ June 22, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    “I’ll take these people over the Malthusian misanthropists with a totalitarian bent, fixated on killing to the point of creating snuff films, advising tattooing/branding and suggesting suicide to people with opposing points of views, any day. ”

    Um, yeah, OK. You must not know very many scientists I guess.

    You may not like the policy implications – reasonable people can disagree on that for sure – but the people who decide on policy are not the people engaged in the actual climate science.

    Lumping any/everyone who disagrees with your desire not to believe the data is demonstrating some of the same traits you criticize above.

    Oh, and you really think anyone was actually suggesting tattooing anyone really need to read a wider variety of material to appreciate sarcasm…

  109. In reply to James Sexton. This is not an issue of scoialists v libertarians. Many supporters of the ALP are turning against climate alarmism. The issue is about science, ethics and public policy. Many thousands of coal miners and steel workers are in danger of losing their livleihoods due to the disasterous errors of climate alarmism and the political opportunism of the ALP. Monckton will go over like a lead ballon in our communities. In Australia this is a political fight where the so-called socialist supporters of the ALP who are turning against climate alarmism and carbon tax policy are absolutely critical to the defeat of the Gillard government. If you want to stay in your comfortable political ghettos and throw insults dont insult the intelligence many fine hard working Australians that have voted and supported the ALP in the past but are prepared for the first time in their lives to vote against them in defense of their communities and livlehoods. Many of us are socialists. As i said this is about good science and good public policy not your political bias.

  110. You may well say that “it isn’t helping”, and you may be right. However, another question then arrises, are they actually acting so much like actual Nazies that the comparison is apt?
    Do they wish to controll all indistry by such a great amount of regulation that they basically own it, but without legal awnership, like the German National Socialists did? Yes.
    And are they trying to hugely expand the power and scope of the federal government? Well, yes, trillion dollar budgets anyone?
    Are they cracking down on free press like Nazies. Well, yes, the many preventions of papers being published that disagree with their postion, the harrassment and blackballing and defunding of anyone who manages to get such a paper published, anwhere, the calling for such people to commite suicide or to be killed, the scientific societies leaderships supporting warming without their memberships knowledge or consent, the societies denial of any dissent on that, the almost total prevention of anyone in the mainstream press from being allowed to hold any position other than warming, what do you call that if not a crackdown?
    Are they starting to create a Ghestapo style organization, which can without constitutional approval arrest and harrass anyone they like, well, yes http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ They bhave started to show up at public evensts, bus stations , ad hoc road blocks set up for no apperent reason, businesses, and anywhere else they like without a warrent, thus without due process. They show up with other government and police types and without warrrent for their searches of persons or property or papers may arrest anyone for anything regardless of whether it has enything to do with terrorism or not, such as immigration, drugs, or any charge they may dream up. They are now said to be able to legally barge into your home without being invited and without a warrent as well.

    As for Godwins law, well, it is one thing to say that ANY discussion will come around to calling the other side Nazis. Well, what do we do if they actually ARE Nazies, avoid calling them that? Who made Godwin God? Has that “law” been voted on, signed into law, anything? Has that “law” been given a rigorous scientific test? So, why do we call it a law? Are their penalties for not following it, the Godwin law police? I mean, what do we say if we are not allowed to call people who look like nazies, whoes beleif, National Socialism, and whoes actions are more and more exactly like the Nazi one, and who talk like nazies, saying many of the same words? If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and quacks like a duck, are you saying that Godwin says we may not actually call it a duck?

    This whole warming thing is just a cover for a brand of socialism that is more and more almost identical to German National Socailism (and most dictatorships thoughout history, to some extent, the Germans were not the first). So, what DO we call it, of not the most appropriet name?

    Here is a question, just how much do they have to act like Nazies before we are willing to say that? Will we wait to say it until it’s too late? Were there people in Germany who waited to say anything untill it was too late? When they stop talking about gassing you with carbone monoxide, and start actually rounding you up to do it, it will be a litle late then.

  111. Anthony:

    Been a while since I’ve commented here (or anywhere . . . business is good), but I had to weigh in.

    I must agree entirely with the spirit and letter of your post. Over the years, one of the ongoing strengths of the skeptic position is the willingness to provide links to sites, such as realclimate (on WUWT and climateaudit, though sadly I see Jo Nova has removed this), willingness to be civil in most discourse, willingness to leave at least the authors name and a “snip”, when removing offensive material and willingness to engage anyone who isn’t intent on murder. As such, in time, we now have support or at least grudging acknowledgment from people like Judith Curry, the Dr’s Pielke and, it seems, Mark Lynas. This is indeed a war. In this war however, the policies of Ghandi will prevail (a non-violent opposition to tyranny).

    Ours is a battle of persuasion, not destruction. Those we need to persuade are NOT blogging at realclimate. They are people who are only peripherally aware of the scientific debate. To date, they look at the news and see only that “many hundreds of papers a year are published supporting this while only a couple a year are published contradicting it” (a direct quote from a tenured statistics professor at McGill). These people need to be told to look at what is being published. A good comparison is tobacco related studies. Up until the 1960′s, most of what was published related to tobacco was positive. This was because that was where the money was. If you look to the history of health and tobacco, prior to 1962, you would be led to believe that the stuff was probably good for you. Looking back, that position is so totally absurd, one wonders how it lasted so long. Yet it did. Because “many papers a year were published supporting this while only a couple a year were published contradicting it”. We can go back to evolution too. Darwin was afraid to publish the origin of species because it was so far outside the accepted norms. Today, only radical nutbars dispute the concept of natural selection.

    Science will out. There is no need and indeed a direct cost for vitriol. The skeptic position is the minority position, the underdog, the downtrodden. In time, it will win out because it is right. That time will be shorter if we take the high road and abstain from the vitriol, tempting and indeed often deserved as it may be.

    Best Regards

    John Eggert P.Eng.

  112. Connolly,

    No, this has become an entirely political issue.
    Science, good or bad, has nothing to do with what politicians are doing to us under “green” cover.
    Why should we be polite with people who shamelessly lie into our faces, and rob us under a gunpoint?

  113. BTW, those who “read” Mr Watts pubic website is indeed open to the public. .

    Not sure I could have said that better myself, Wil.

  114. We need to be just as hard as the Gaians, but words like fascist, Marxist, racist, anything-o-phobic, have lost all meaning and become pure cuss words. It’s possible to be harsh and meaningful by using less common words. For example, totalitarian still carries a full load of meaning, maybe because it has too many syllables for a good shout.

  115. Hitler propounded “National Socialism”, a socialism for Germans, and Stalin called his version of socialism for Russia, “Socialism in One Country”. Not much difference in concept! Both were being pragmatic. Each had global supremacist’s ambitions, but realized he needed to consolidate totalitarian dictatorship at home before advancing on the rest of the world. Lenin on, the other hand, had romantic delusions of world revolution from the beginning.

  116. Moderate Republican says:
    June 22, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    James Sexton says @ June 22, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    “I’ll take these people over the Malthusian misanthropists with a totalitarian bent, fixated on killing to the point of creating snuff films, advising tattooing/branding and suggesting suicide to people with opposing points of views, any day. ”

    “Um, yeah, OK. You must not know very many scientists I guess.
    blathering…..blathering…..blathering……

    more of the same……blathering……
    Oh, and you really think anyone was actually suggesting tattooing anyone really need to read a wider variety of material to appreciate sarcasm…”
    ========================================================

    MR, do you intentionally take everything I state out of context? Or is that simply a handicap you try to work around? My comment wasn’t aimed at the scientists. I thought that rather obvious. I’ll try to go slower for you next time, but you must know, you’re holding the group up. I was responding to Joshua, who seemed exception to the people gathered at this site. Oddly, in a perverse irony, I was actually defending even you, MR. (Seeing that you being a regular here and all.) And, YW. I was, rather comparing the typical reader/commentator here at WUWT, to the people that fantasize about our demise.

    Sarcasm—— honestly, I love a good bit of sarcasm, even when occasionally directed at me. Its a great form of humor. Humor…….yes, nothing so hilarious as to watching non-conforming little tykes(that part was especially knee-slapping) blown to itty, bitty little pieces of blood and gore. I understand for a sequel, much like the spoofs of “Scary Movie”, they’ll be doing a side splitting bit about the “Killing Fields” in Cambodia, with a humorous follow up of Mao’s Great Leap Forward. —— Sarcasm.

  117. We’ve been too polite for too long with liars and thieves who already control the globe and are enslaving us more and more every day.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have the winner of the thread.

    And considering the stiff competition on this thread, I’d definitely consider that to be an “all-start” level post.

  118. connolly says:
    June 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    In reply to James Sexton. This is not an issue of scoialists v libertarians………..
    ============================================================

    Certainly, Connolly, I may have gone a bit far in rolling with Monckton’s analogy. And, you are quite correct, it shouldn’t be about politics, it should be about getting science correct. Sadly, I’m afraid on this contentious issue, you’ll find it impossible to separate. I hope I’m wrong.

    For me, I take it as a huge statement towards the validity of the science, if one sees such diverse groups unified in opposition to one singular issue. I also understand, that words carry different connotations in our two different nations. In my view, to have a government demand that you accept a point of view without the ability to question the government, and the same government imposes a punitive taxation on their people to accomplish their goals, meets my definition of totalitarian socialism. But, perhaps you’d word it differently in Australia. I won’t pretend to understand the labels and verbiage used down there.

    But, just so we’re clear, there was never an intention of insulting anything about the hard working laborers of Australia. People seeking to impose their will against the wishes of their people and confiscating their wealth and livelihoods at the same time is what I rise to oppose and insult along the way.

    Best wishes,

    James

  119. Since the 2008 publication of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, it has been intellectually dishonest to avoid addressing the plain tact that fascism – including Nazism – is a phenomenon of the authoritarian political left, and the adherents of the various socialist movements (call them progressives or “Liberals” or Peronistas or Communists or whatever else they’re using this week as a masquerade) are identical in their corrosive intent to violate the individual human rights of real, live people for what they excuse as “the greater good.”

    With particular reference to the confluence of operations between “Liberal” fascists and los warmistas (the “We’re All Gonna Die!” demonizers of anthropogenic carbon dioxide), let me quote writer L. Neil Smith in his “A Letter to Australia” earlier this year:

    Left wing fascists who call themselves liberals or progressives don’t solve problems. They can’t solve problems. In the first place, unsolved problems are their very stock in trade; solved problems represent a threat to their way of life. And, too, the particular mental illness that they suffer — and fraudulently try to present to the world as a political philosophy — isolates them from the cold, hard facts of objective reality, rendering them incapable of solving problems.

    Instead, given sufficient money and political power, they merely shuffle problems around, shifting the load, as it were, from one location to another, invariably making things vastly worse in the process. It’s the sociopolitical equivalent of sweeping dirt under the rug.

    For example, they erroneously believe that switching from internal combustion to electric cars will eliminate exhaust pipe emissions and somehow “save the Earth” (which, although they childishly refuse to acknowledge it, doesn’t really need saving). What they don’t see — because they won’t look — is that generating enough electric current to operate the automobiles of a nation or the world will fill the air with a greater volume of smokestack emissions, made worse because of the inefficiencies involved in delivering energy from powerplants to garages.

    The “Liberal” fascists are fascists. When one of ‘em struts like a Sturmabeilungmann (purple shirts instead of brown), spouts denigratory epithets like a Gauleiter, and grabs for “global warming research” funding and “carbon taxes” mulcted from innocent, protesting private citizens like a concentration camp guard going through his victims’ mouths with pliers in search of gold teeth, what the heck else are you supposed to call them?

  120. I’ve always liked Lord Monckton even though at times I thought his choice of words was a bit distasteful and not appropriate for mixed company and delicate ears such as mine. Nevertheless, Chris is one of those people I’d like to have dinner with.

    I’ve observed that some people seem to have a visceral adverse reaction to Lord Monckton, in the same way some people react to Sarah Palin. I like Sarah too.

    I guess what they say … different strokes for different folks …. is really quite true. Darned if I can figure out why.

    I agreed with Anthony’s post, yet there are comments that present a convincing case for Monckton’s “over the top” offense. (Note: I suspect some might define “offense” in my usage as a crime, others as an onslaught. Works both ways – I’m still on the fence.)

    I had been wondering what Chris was up to recently. I guess he’s on the lecture circuit.

    I’d love to see him guest post here so he could let us know where he is truly coming from.

    Respectfully, Gcapologist

  121. Moderate Republican says on June 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm


    Scott Covert says @ June 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm “He has always been an irritating Sot but he has his facts straight.”

    Your assertion that he has “his facts straight” is non-factual;

    “I wrote to these authors and I read their papers. It turned out that none of the authors or papers made the claims that Monckton attributed to them. This pattern of misinterpretation was becoming chronic.”

    Full response here;

    http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

    Are our memories or minds going? (This involves a gross assumption, e.g. we had minds to start with.) Or, perhaps we are just not as well-read as first presumed …

    Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.

    What do you do when someone speaks against your faith, sounds authoritative, well informed, and backs everything up with lots of evidence? If you’re sane, you change your mind.

    If you are John P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, you write to a few select scientists distorting what your opponent said, and then collect the infuriated responses. Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn’t say, complained about things he didn’t cite (even if he did and it’s printed on his slides), pretended he couldn’t find sources (but didn’t take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton’s character.

    The untruths and fabrications have come back to bite him.

    LOVE your stuff BTW; continue to give … we can always use another foil

    See also:
    Abraham climbs down
    Posted on July 14, 2010 by Anthony Watts

    .

  122. “David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

    At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

    And David Suzuki of all people (he has actually been in an internment camp) shouldn’t be saying such things.

    But exhorting his followers to jail his “enemies” …. sounds like fascism to me.

  123. Alexander Feht said, “Eco-fascists are eco-fascists, that’s their proper name, and they should be called as such as often as possible.”

    I’m not aware of Mr Watt, or anyone here being upset over theuse of the word eco-fascism.

    “We’ve been too polite for too long with liars and thieves who already control the globe and are enslaving us more and more every day. Glad to see that many of the regular visitors of your site did not follow you in this attempt to make piece with monsters.” (A. Feht.)

    Goodness, who declared a war and who is trying to make peace with what enemy? This is still a scientific and political debate…uh, right? The vast majority of Warmists are just people who believe in their side for various reasons, and most mean well. Most of us here think they are dead wrong, that their arguments are weak and their policies harmful…but most would not refer to them as an enemies or monsters.

    “Understandably, people of Ira Glickstein’s ilk would enthusiastically support you [i.e., Anthony Watt] in this, as they would enthusiastically exploit any weakness in their opponents — but we all know by now, who they really are, and what they really want here.” (Ibid.)

    Hoo-boy. Well, whoever this Ira Glickstein is (clearly an enemy, but is he a monster too?), let’s all hope we…whoever we are…are not associated with him , or with you as our resident political officer and chief of information , we’re all toast. In my case, since I haven’t really figured out yet who I am, and come to think of it, I’m not always sure as to why I’m here, or if I’m of the “Ira Glickstein ilk,” you might have an advantage over me, Mr Feht.

  124. This is the problem with the current political correctness on climate change science and policy. If skeptics make one ill-advised comment you can guarantee it gets the full press exposure on all the mainstream channels for a week. If Naziesque death threats are made against skeptics no one bats an eye. I would like to think that human beings could evolve above such damaging levels of discourse, but history does not provide much support for that hope.

  125. Grumpy Old Man UK says:
    June 22, 2011 at 11:32 am
    The comparison is also inaccurate. There are major differences between the political creeds of Fascism, National Socialism and Communism ))

    A bit of re-writing of history here. Facism came from Communism. Benito was a member of the Italian Communists and thought they lacked physical grunt. Hitler loved Benitos style and developed Naziism. They are one and the same political stream. Just different strengths.
    Instead of reading what he, LM, said why not listen to what LM is saying.
    regards

  126. James Sexton says @ June 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm “In my view, to have a government demand that you accept a point of view without the ability to question the government, and the same government imposes a punitive taxation on their people to accomplish their goals, meets my definition of totalitarian socialism.”

    Silly me, and here I though Australia was functionally a parliamentary democracy, putting aside the whole bit with the Queen for a moment.

  127. DirkH says:
    June 22, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    ” Remember that warmists love to use the war metaphor – Salon has a “War Room”, Richard Branson has his climate war room website… maybe we should call them WARmists…”

    I’ve called them warmongers in the past…

    Yes – “Uber” warmist Branson. He runs his own airline. How does that all jive then? How can he sleep at night?

  128. Thinking, free-market, Anti-AGW, progressive, Liberal (_Jim) says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Moderate Republican says on June 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    See also:
    Abraham climbs down
    =========================================================

    Yeh, MR is fun to play with, every site needs a few, else it gets a bit boring.

    I especially want to thank you for that trip down memory lane…….. my goodness its been almost a year since the dramatic weight loss of Abraham’s video! 73 minutes of actionable lies snipped out overnight.

  129. Thinking, free-market, Anti-AGW, progressive, Liberal (_Jim) says @ “June 22, 2011 at 6:18 pm”

    Yeah, um, OK. So I got the hurray for our side bit. Fun. Hope that was enjoyable – now back to the topic.

    A rebuttal from the person who made all the mistakes is hardly compelling.

    Nothing you wrote changes all of the inaccuracies in Monckton’s presentation. Seems a bit specious to get all excited that the refutation is now 10 minute shorter – it Monckton was correct there wouldn’t be 60 minutes of rebuttal.

  130. “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.”

    Lubos, you sir, just lost your credibility. Monkton has been unhinged in the debate since ClimateGate and his appearance on radio programs such as Alan Jones, a known bigot and profiteer(see “Alan Jones cash for comments”) only serves to polarize the public. Not what you want when the goal is to find common ground and map out a solution to this mess.

    That you are a fan of ACM is disappointing. Chris’s repeated hate speech against all those he dislikes, including aboriginals, immigrants, women, poor, etc, is telling of a personal agenda which co-opts climate change to further political point of view. Maybe you should get your head out of your arse and get back to the science. Pushing your wheelbarrow but doesn’t solve any of the problems we are currently facing.

  131. Smiley face fascism.

    It’s an in the name of doing good culture. It touches every area of life. And it wants your children. It doesn’t have a mean Hitler face. It’s a smiley face, with furry polar bears, pretty coral reefs, and clean energy cars. But it still is fascism. There is no room for freedom in global warming. You are coerced to follow—in the name of doing good for the world.

    Jonah Goldberg on feel good fascism:

  132. Bruce says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    But exhorting his followers to jail his “enemies” …. sounds like fascism to me.

    I agree Bruce.

  133. Peter Kovachev,

    Eco-fascists prevail in most of the world’s governments, almost totally control the mainstream media, practically destroyed the very idea of scientific education, persecuting, gagging and discriminating everybody who dares to speak against them, while drowning us all in taxation and regulation, killing off enterprises and individual liberty — and you call them “just people who believe in their side for various reasons, and mean well”?

    They take hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer’s money, and spend it on persecution of honest businesses that contradict their propaganda, they make laws that make you a slave to their ideology (try to buy a 100W bulb in California lately?), they brainwash your children in public schools, they laugh in your face and threaten your employment as soon as you try to argue for truth — and you still call it a debate?

    Do you not realize, how ridiculous and pitiful your (and Joshua’s) attempts at irony are?
    Be slaves if you wish — but don’t tell me to become one.

  134. Just for balance and right of reply, here is what Professor Garnaut said in response to Monckton.

    “”I’m not going to comment on myself. Other people can look at my life and career and make their own judgments,” he said.
    “I think Nazism and symbols of Nazism are deadly serious.
    “Most Australians would think that anyone who uses those terms and symbols inappropriately is putting themselves outside the boundaries of civilised discourse.”

  135. look up the australian fabian movement and there agenda it all fits in Gillard is a member along with other labour water melon heads

  136. While the fascist aspect may have merits, the nazi jibe is way out of line. We already have viscious ad hominem attacks going in one direction. Let’s not let this descend into needless tit for tat.

  137. Moderate Republican says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    James Sexton says @ June 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm “In my view, to have a government demand that you accept a point of view without the ability to question the government, and the same government imposes a punitive taxation on their people to accomplish their goals, meets my definition of totalitarian socialism.”

    Silly me, and here I though Australia was functionally a parliamentary democracy, putting aside the whole bit with the Queen for a moment.
    ========================================================================
    Yes, that may be why their a bit agitated lately. I think they’re under the same assumption. But, it appears that some (the ones in office) don’t seem to care much about all that.

  138. I disagree with you on this one. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then it is a duck.

    I would ask everyone to read Naomi Wolf’s “10 steps to fascism”

    Then ask yourself “where are we?”. Lord Monckton is correct and in his bluntness will put the issue front and center where it should be. If we can’t have dissent on a supposedly scientific issue then sieg heil it is.

  139. The Gaian Prophet Lovelock

    James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2156

    One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

    James Lovelock – Population Reduction “max 1 billion”

    Deep Ecology

    Naess believes there are too many humans on the planet: “I think we must have no more than 100 million people if we are to have the variety of cultures we had one hundred years ago.” (Devall & Sessions, 1985)

    http://www.deepecologysite.com/deep-ecology-7/

  140. For the non Australians: The last election was close run thing and Julia Gillard promised before the election NO CARBON TAX under a government I lead.

    That’s why some of us are more than a little torqued about this. If Julia had said she would bring in a carbon tax instead of ruling it out she’d likely have lost and Tony Abbott would be PM.
    She’s a bare faced liar and won’t give us the chance to vote on this before passing laws to implement it.
    US readers may like to know that Australians don’t actually have many rights at all. We have nothing like the US Bill of Rights or Constitution. The Australian political ethos is that a government can do anything it can pass in parliament. Yes, that includes jailing or tattooing climate deniers or pretty much anything else.

  141. Moderate Republican
    Australia a democracy?Not according to the opposition
    TONY Abbott has rejected the latest climate change report from economist Ross Garnaut as an assault on democracy, warning that it proposes to give a committee of unelected appointees the power to set tax rates.

    “There is a developing democratic deficit here,” he said. “First of all the Prime Minister wasn’t upfront with the Australian public before the election. Now the idea that taxes in this country should effectively be set by people who are outside the parliament, and who are not accountable to the people, I think, is just odd.

    “This just goes to show how out of control the government is on this whole climate change question.”

    Later, the Opposition Leader continued his attack in question time, noting that the report said: “Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price”.

    “So how can (the Prime Minister) continue to maintain that her tax only makes big polluters pay?” Mr Abbott asked parliament.
    End
    Maybe Monckton went too far,he did have a point but he should engage with people like Garnaut and Chubb,not denigrate them.

  142. As for CM, wasn’t it Barry Goldwater who said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” or something like that?

    How we forget what liberties and freedom we once had.

  143. Per Sun Tzu:

    “To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.”
    =======
    Without a route for escape, our nearly defeated foes will fight like cornered animals till their end.
    If they desire an escape, let’s give them one.

  144. I agree with you Anthony. Inflammatory language and imagery, while having entertainment value, does nothing to advance the discussion of science which is where the fight will be won by everyone provided that we are in honest pursuit of truth.

  145. Dear Anthony,

    I understand where you’re coming from – you have lived in a democracy throughout all of your life and you just can’t imagine that *anyone* or *anything* in your own country would be trying to establish anything else than democracy so you think that all these comparisons have to be inappropriate. But I have not. And in particular, the communists were equally sensitive about such comparisons.

    Still, Stalin killed 20-40 million people, somewhat more than Hitler, and he was far from being the only one who did things of this caliber. However, the communists were pretending to be the universally “nice ones”. The matter of fact is that their system depended on state-organized terror in a similar way as the Nazi regime simply because it was suppressing some basic aspects of the human behavior. It was suppressing the human freedom in pretty much the same way as the Nazi regime – although for different detailed reasons – and it is simply not possible to do so in a kosher way.

    The same has to be done by those who want to regulate the carbon cycle because every process we do is potentially involved in the carbon cycle. And this desire to control everyone and punish every deviation – especially the skeptics – is quite explicitly seen among many advocates of the global warming hysteria. One may always say that all those Jill Singers etc. are just extreme examples. Except that, unlike the proposed society by the skeptics which is really business-as-usual, their movement really *does* need things that violate democracy as well as human rights – and in some cases, they will need to kill people because many people just won’t peacefully give up their basic rights.

    They’re not really doing so yet and I hope that they never will. But this was the situation of the Nazi party in the early 1930s, too. And they were using the same symbol. The symbols don’t symbolize just the nastiest things that the Nazi people did. Quite on the contrary, the symbols symbolize primarily the ideological patterns and approach to the society that made their regime possible. That’s what Lord Monckton finds among the environmentalists as well.

    All the best
    Luboš

  146. As somebody who is a “mild alarmist”, if such a thing can exist, I have always thought Lord Monkton one of Britains eccentric inbred bores who should be ignored and he got far to much credence on here. I think the same about some of the extremists on the other side of the camp too. They should all shut up or at least try and see the other side of the coin, like I do by coming here.

    It’s interesting that the Australians are painted as easy going party lovers, seems they have got into a bit of a state about climate change though which makes me chuckle, it is undermining their image !

  147. Excuse me for injecting a dose of reality into the proceedings but what kind of conflict do you think we are engaged in?

    What kind of people are sceptics in conflict with? Green is not and never has been green, it is in fact a fabricated illusion and cover for red fascism, the nature of this ecofascism is based on red fascism. If ecofascism prevails and is allowed to dominate does anyone think they will tolerate dissent and free speech and democratic values and gentlemanly conduct and some kind of Queensbury rules ‘invite a sceptic to tea’? Sooner or later we have to get to grips with the true nature of ecofascism, there are many who do not wish to see it.

    Everything we have seen over the last ten years points to red fascism and its goal of suborning and absorbing the green movement into its political ideology. Look at the policies and aims and direction of the CAGW cult, they call it environmental justice, they call it sustainable economics. Look closely at the ultimate policy goals of ecofascism and they are identical to any Marxist revolutionary party or regime. Look at what they call us now, at the crimes they accuse us of, if they gain power does anyone think they will suddenly become our friends and sit down for a friendly chat about the merits of sceptical libertarianism? Listen to what they are saying and claiming now and then just think what they would do to us if they had the power.

    A total and complete acceptance of Marxist theology and doctrines, a total hatred of capitalism, a total desire to enforce red doctrines and ideology on the masses, for their own good of course.The idea that the individual will must be erased in favour of the will of the masses as expressed and dictated by the new elite of course. The will of whole as opposed to the will of the individual, the notion that free will and liberty are poisonous and contrary to the good of the whole. The idea that the dissenting individual or group is the enemy of the whole, an enemy of the people, an enemy of the state, an anti social element and a counter revolutionary.

    What is the nature of fascism? If you are a sceptic then ask yourself this question. If ecofascism prevails does anyone think the new reality will be any different from historys worst example of red or black fascism? Will there be an honoured place at the table for sceptics or a place in the camps? Come on folks, its reality time and a reality check. The people who have laboured so hard to clothe their red fascist ideology in green clothes hate sceptics, we are their mortal enemies, they cannot afford to allow libertarianism or scepticism or freedom of the individual to survive in their new world order, ecofascism cannot afford to have sceptics picking holes in their web of lies, they mean to finish us any way they can and by any means necessary.

  148. If you look into the website of Socialists International for Member Parties International , you will find an alphabetical list of members:-

    http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931

    In that list you will see the Member Party for Australia is the Australian Labor Party ( ALP)
    As The Australian Labor Party is the government party – in minority, supported by members of the Australian Greens Party and two Independent members, it makes the Australian Government a Socialist government.
    There should be no argument about this definition !
    The Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard admits to being the secretary of a university Socialist group, but documents from later show that Ms Gillard was more involved than just a secretary. The Australian Socialist party disbanded and Ms Gillard became a member of the Australian Fabians. She also has a propensity to wear red.

    Lord Monckton has used a symbol that is offensive for many people, to tag Prof Ross Garnaut, a person who through his attitude of “do what I say , not what I do” does not sit well for many Australians. (the Lihir Gold Mine tailngs into the river debacle, while Garnaut was CEO )
    Possibly Christopher Monckton is saying “Wake up Australia, your too complacent “. He also used shock tactics to wake up the world about the UNFCCC Climate Change Treaty pre Copenhagen COP15 (Saint Paul Univ. Minnesota)

    Czech President Vaclav Klaus will be in Australia early July, speaking at a couple of functions. Our Prime Minister has not shown any interest in meeting with this Head of State, possibly because he is a climate change sceptic and that he equates climate change dogma akin to communism.

    This does get away from the science of climate. But with the science being parked with the use of “consensus science” and “the science is settled” through the MSM and many internet sites, as well as members of Al Gore’s The Climate Project showing up in the media (Cate Blanchett ), possibly the tools and the language must become a bit more vigorous.
    It would take 50x Richard Lindzens to make any impression, then I doubt it would work.

  149. Noelene I agree with you
    Freedom of speech and divergence of opinion is required
    From a brain washed Aussie

  150. Reply to James Sexton
    I’ve learnt much concerning the issues of climate science from so many contributors here, including yourself. Here in Australia the climate realists really are winning over many of the the constituency of the Labor Party against the ALP/Green”s carbon (sic) tax. The future of the Australian steel industry is at stake as the carbon (sic) tax will basically price Australian steel out of the domestic and international market. After some time of reading WUWT. Jo Nova, Bishop etc a bunch of us (some environmentalists, conservatives, former ALPérs and trade unionists – we make no distinction) started up a campaiging group against the tax here in the main steel making region in Australia. Initially we were denigrated as “flat earthers and “right wingers”. Some of us were threatened. We stuck to the issues and have tried to argue the science. We recieved a great boost from a visit and lecture to our region by the brilliant Dr Bob Carter. We need the ethical scientists to set out the science and the decent hard working honest people we will take care of the politics in our communities. The ALP and Greens on the ground in this industrial heartland of the ALP are today in disarray. In an election (which cant come soon enough) the ALP/Green coalition will be soundly defeated, including here in their so-called heartland. The ALP is facing its worst electoral defeat in living memory Just wanted to thank you all for helping some of us former warmists to see the light (or is it the sun). Best wishes and more power to your elbow.

  151. David, UK says:
    June 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm
    “Given the recent elevated rhetoric in Australia, the claims of death threats, and the media suggestions of skeptics getting tattooed and gassed…”
    “Skeptics getting tattooed and gassed” – has Ross Garnaut personally expressed a desire for this (or a similar) “solution?” Because if not, then Lord Monckton’s attack is unwarranted ))

    Did Ross Garnaut ever censor these out-pourings of panic?? Silence is consent. He must agree because he was silent.
    regards

  152. I was nearly ready to defend His Lordship against the charge, noting that fascist does not require “Nazi”. . . and then I saw the Swaztika. Sorry, M’Lord. . . you’re on your own on this one. My best advice is to apologize quickly for the moment of exaggeration, and move on. One cannot be “in the arena” for long stretches of time without stepping on one’s. . . umm. . . tie?. . . from time to time. Best to admit to momentary human failing, and change the subject.

  153. I think he’s right to do it. We are dealing with fascists – why can’t we call a spade a spade?

  154. here’s a copy of a comment I left on another blog on 7/6/11
    A message from a brainwashed Aussie

    Here in Aust there’s a lot of misinformation being fed to the public by the Govt and its agents (Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery and key Climate Advisor Ross Garnaut.) Ross Garnaut is an economist – go figure. The Climate Change Commission has just produced a report ‘The Critical Decade.’ You can see its report debunked by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth at http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/climate-commission-report-debunked/#more-15045
    and the report itself bears this disclaimer http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-garnaut-review-2011.pdf

    I’ve lifed in a communist country and I’ve never been subject to this brainwashing before
    This publication is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia or indicate a commitment to a particular policy or course of action. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth of Australia preparing this publication accept no liability for the accuracy, completeness or reliability of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material. Before any action or decision is taken on the basis of this material the reader should obtain appropriate independent advice.

    If you had gone to a doctor for a birth control pill at the time thalidomide was on the market you would have expected medical advice if the product was not safe – and because it was not there were later class actions; same applied in the case of breast implants.

    Notwithstanding the disclaimer the Govt has seized upon the Report with enthusiasm as entirely showing the correctness of their proposed new tax.

    Angry voters however want an election – http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/angry-voters-want-election-before-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226069753915
    Most Australians believe the new tax will or could hurt them financially

    The Govt however spruiks the line that with the help of its brand new tax we’re each going to be better off – in fact $8,000 better off according to Treasury modelling – you can read about this here

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/new-carbon-tax-pitch-well-be-much-better-off/story-fn59niix-1226070560026

    I haven’t seen the report yet so don’t know whether it carries a disclaimer

    Then there’s people worried about their jobs. No probs, there will be no labor market consequences, this report ‘How many jobs is 23,510 Really’ says the impact of the carbon tax on the mining industry will be “trivial” – so small that for practical purposes it will be “invisible,” according to one of Australia’s leading labour market economists; link to the report and critique here

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/06/06/how-many-jobs-is-23510-really/

    Then there’s the Govt’s other line regarding the labor market – yes you’ve heard it before – all those great new jobs in these great new green industries – no matter Spain and Italy have found for the creation of 1.5 green jobs there are 3 lost in the non green sector – there is selective deafness to that inconvenient truth

    Then there’s my personal problem – my ears are attacked daily by my mother who is every day beseiged by alarmist messages over the air waves – everything from diminution of polar bears, increasing sea heights, ocean acidification – the only thing the alarmists seem to be not commenting upon at the moment is warming cos it doesn’t seem to be happening

    Oh yes, I forgot to say the Govt is going to compensate us for cost of living changes

    Well happy days
    I (and the rest of Aust) will be in Nirvana as soon as this tax is introduced; the neighbour’s cat is marching past with its placard ‘Compensate me now’.

  155. and check this story out
    the people who went to the anti carbon dioxide tax in Canberra
    ‘extremists’

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45518.html

    The first thing I learnt on my way to the No Carbon Tax Rally in Canberra is that extremists are punctual – in fact, way better than punctual.

    Although ten minutes early, I was last to board my bus, one of about five buses loading passengers in my extreme outer suburb of Sydney. If you want to stop this revolution, trust me, you will need to get up early.

    To be honest, I had no idea these people were extremists until advised over the radio by Labor backbencher Nick Champion who was doing a doorstop interview at our destination. As soon as the information came through the radio speakers, I began to take notes just in case you, dear reader, should ever find yourself with one in your midst.

    On the exterior, most of these extremists are middle aged, with maybe an average age of 50. Sadly, this means we cannot rule out that they have extremist children of voting age mixing amongst the workaday crowds of the city.

    The extremist men seemed to favour horizontal striped polo shirts, shorts and sandals. There was an extremist plumber who took the day off for the rally and told me his friends were surprised he would ever go to something like this. There was an extremist small businessman who gave all his workers the day off to come with him. They spoke of football.

    The extremist women favoured short cropped hair of various colours, gold ear-rings, plain blouses and slacks. They spoke about their families and their power bills. Many extremists of both sexes seem to favour reading glasses.

    The bus trip to Canberra was every bit as uneventful as all that phrase might convey, but when the roads suddenly improved and we passed the adult shops, we knew we had arrived.

    Driving up to the lawns of Parliament we saw a surprisingly large group of people in the distance and wondered at first if they could be part of our group or part of another, but on drawing closer we could see no dreadlocks or giant papier mache head The first surprise was to see Angry Anderson on stage, and the greatest relief was that he was singing “We Can’t Be Beaten” and not “Suddenly”.

    Despite a vastly inaccurate report from AAP that the crowd was 1,000, I can confirm that the extremists stretched back from the stage for about 80 metres down the lawn – easily 4,000 strong, probably more.

    Angry was living up to his name, telling the extremists that the time comes when we must all stand for something. He was reading out the placards, most of which were good humoured, and some that were less so. At one point he told the bemused crowd he had learned from John Pilger not to trust the United Nations.

    Angry’s Pilger reference proved not to be the biggest surprise of the day. This honour belonged to the occasion – later – when an older lady suffered heat stroke and Angry asked whether a doctor was present. The bloke dressed in drag as Julia with a pinocchio nose immediately shed his costume and came forward.

    Angry was followed, naturally, by Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott. They were well received, but not as well as crowd favourite Barnaby Joyce. Barnaby was like a rock star who finally found his concert. If he wanted, he could have crowd surfed down to old Parliament House under a tide of joyous protesters, who would have painted his portrait and hung it in the front entrance of the portrait gallery, before returning him to the stage.

    Barnaby said that his mother in law in the New England who does Meals on Wheels had told him that pensioners were already under pressure from power bills, and were not using their air conditioners. At least, that’s what we heard.

    Fairfax newspapers reported instead that he had told everyone cheap energy was their birthright.

    A sky-writer put ‘Juliar’ across the Canberra sky, providing for a few seconds, a surreal tableau.

    Sophie Mirabella told us that Julia Gillard was willing to send thousands of jobs off shore to save one – her own. A small businessman told us if he operated like the Prime Minister he would be out of business; a single mother said that being truthful was the first thing we taught our children; and a great grandmother told the Prime Minister to go shove her tax.

    Other speakers who made the mistake of mentioning Bob Brown, Penny Wong, Ross Garnaut or the United Nations in the middle of a phrase had the rest of their sentence drowned out by boos.

    There were chants, mainly “No Carbon Tax” “Liar, liar…” and at one point, yes “Ditch the Witch”. Perhaps most disturbingly of all for the Prime Minister, thousands of extremists chanted “Election, election… “

    We were told that the ABC and GetUp were investigating the corporate movers and shakers behind the extremist movement. Let me save the investigators some time right here. According to the acknowledgments, a Kennards franchise lent them some of the equipment, a small business in Penrith lent them some speakers, and someone called Valerie was responsible for printing some signs.

    When it ended the Federal police stood in a line in front of Parliament House with their trousers tucked into their steel capped boots just so. A man in a Hawaiian shirt went up to the tallest one and tried to get him to join the revolution.

    While the Feds were distracted, several extremists with cardigans and fold-up chairs slipped through the cordon and headed towards the gift shop to buy snow domes.

    Back at the bus station in Sydney I saw a woman talking to someone I took to be her daughter and a grandchild of about five.

    She told her daughter, “They called us extremists!”

  156. Quite. The argument of sceptics must always be non partisan, pure science with nothig but a clear and honest regard for the facts.

    This kind of emotive argument discredits us.

  157. Noelene says:
    June 22, 2011 at 9:11 pm
    This article says that he has apologised.

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/

    Christopher Monckton has apologised to the Sydney Morning Herald:
    “Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as “fascist”. I apologize humbly.

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/

    Probably best to read Monckton’s apology along with the rest of what he said:

    “Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as “fascist”. I apologize humbly. Will there be similar apologies from those who have called us “climate deniers” or “denialists”, or who say we should be tattooed with our opinions, or imprisoned, or barred from Australia, or tried for “high crimes against humanity?

    We await Mr Glover’s and Ms Singers responses.

    Just like Baa Humbug said, his offensive has put the Warmista on the spot, if they condemn him, they also have to condemn those in their own ranks who make over the top statements about deniers, death trains, tattoos and gassing, or prove thwmselves hypocrites.

    Also, it guarantees big audiences at his lecture tour and raises the profile of the fact that a well known public figure dares to oppose the holier than thou tax raisers.

    Clever tactics from Chris Monckton.

  158. Well, this has been an interesting thread.

    Interesting to see that whenever Chris Monckton shows up everyone starts bouncing off the walls and turning cartwheels.

    Those who disapprove of (a) the Nazi reference and (b) Monckton himself should perhaps wonder WHY this thread has seen more Troll activity than anything I can remember for many months. One of them, “Moderate Republican” even has the effrontery to cite Abraham as “proof” that Monckton has been debunked, get his facts wrong and all the rest.

    Unfortunately that is [snip], pure and simple. Abraham is a 24 carat nitwit.

    Yes, Monckton has (very occasionally) got something wrong and, in my experience is usually swift to say so. But, needless to say the Hyperthermalists latch on to some minor detail that may be questionable and attempt to use this as “proof” that everything else is “debunked” or “discredited”. Just as the eggregious Bob Ward did in “reviewing” Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”.

    So, yes, Anthony, I would be very cautious about using the “Nazi” reference. Not because the Hyperthermalists don’t act pretty much lthat way but because it is a counter-productive cliche. (But anyone who has watched the videos of Monckton’s presentation at Copenhagen will have to confess that his “Hitler Youth” description of the Greenie thugs who broke up the meeting, was entirely apt.)

    But, whilst I’m not an uncritical fan of Monckton, the fact remains that he is a knowledgable and effective debater. And the fact that he [snip] off the Greenies big-style should surely be held in his favour.

    And hat-tips to Roy UK, James Sexton, Lubos Motl, DirkH, Tallbloke and many others for their sterling work here!

  159. I also think this is calculating and deliberately provocative from Monckton.

    Not so much for the big audiences for his tour, but so that bunches of left-wing nutters will come and demonstrate and try to bust up his lectures, general mayhem, fracas with the cops and so on.

    That way, TV audiences get to see the ugly side of the climate movement, and Monckton gets to throw in a few Brownshirt comments (like he did in Copenhagen).

  160. Monckton knows what he’s doing. It may be Uncomfortable, unpalatable, even unadvisable, but when he knows even his friends are beginning to get Uneasy, he knows he’s onto something.

    Just look at the way he chewed out those rowdy youngsters that invaded his talk in Copenhagen. He put them right & made it clear he wasn’t going to back down at their feigned sensibilities, because his point was much more serious than they realised.

  161. kudos to Watts for speaking against Monckton’s pejoratives which only serve to harm the debate.

  162. Lord Monkton has it right, this isn’t about the science of climate change so elegantly argued here, this is about Science, which has had its foundations undermined by the would be political masters, and the whole edifice is about to crumble, and we will be told what is true, believe it or suffer the consequences.
    The gloves must come off

    This website has many quotes like these below, equally chilling:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

    “So this is not science as we know it. Science has to re-invent itself as a political tool, just as it was under Hitler and Stalin. Scientists must learn ‘as quickly as possible’ what will please the political elite, and serve it up.”

    Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios, and reviewer for UKCP09), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. Hulme has been a champion and exponent of post-normal science for some years to serve his own socialist agenda, and this is what he has to say about post-normal science (some italics added):

    ” The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.

    …‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.

    Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world…

    The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”

    1984 never seemed so relevant.

  163. A lot of valid points which don’t sit comfortably together on this thread.

    In terms of the scientific debate, I wholeheartedly agree with Anthony that inflmmatory rhetoric is not helpful.
    In terms of the political and policy dimensions, it’s no holds barred as far as I can see.

    Chris Monckton arouses such diversity of opinion here because he crosses the divide between being a political rhetorician and a student of the science.

    Nobody gets it right all the time, but in terms of being an effective orator, clever strategist and having his heart in the right place on the climate debate, Monckton has my support.

    By declaiming then apologising he has put the people who want to make denigrating terms for the opposition common currency in a double bind. That’s clever strategy, and we should reserve judgment on this until we see how it plays out.

    If it reduces the shrillness of the rhetoric from the Warmista calling for tattoos, gassings, and loading of ‘D—–s’ onto ‘death trains’, then that will ultimately improve the atmosphere in which the debate over the science takes place.

    Wait’n’see.

  164. Some things never change.

    [says the Communist:] “How dare you call me a Communist, you’re using McCarthyism!”

    [says the Nazi:] “How dare you call me a Nazi, you’re violating Godwin’s Law!”

    Godwin’s law and the charge of McCarthyism, created by Socialists for protecting Socialists, a convenient component of Political Correctness. Designed to shield proto-Nazis from being compared to historical Nazis, and Neo-Communists from being compared to historical Communists.

    It is amazing how even after a very long laundry list of socialist impositions on our God-given freedoms has already occured, and while we stand at the precipice of the most ambitious socialist move against freedom ever dreamed of (the attack on the Carbon cycle itself as Lubos has eloquently described), there are still bed-wetters and hand-wringers on our side that decry offensive language and characterizations of the enemy. If anyone is laughing the bed-wetters it is the ghost of Lenin and all his murderous descendants.

    Being only a few generations removed from actual slavery, hard won after the deaths of hundreds of thousands, I have no intention of ever wearing chains, be they physical, psychological or something else. Am I worried about corrosive debate and Queensbury rules? Hell no!

    I want to express sincere thanks to Luboš Motl, Przemyslaw Pawelczyk, Alexander Feht and Cassie King for keeping their eye on the ball in this thread. Several of them hail from actual Ground Zero in the Communist/Fascist/Socialist war on humanity, and sometimes we spoiled brat westerners in our comfortable lives in the USA and UK need to be reminded of the reality. Thanks.

  165. Lord Monckton sometimes can’t resist poking the opposition with a sharp stick, almost in devilment. Although calling someone’s behaviour fascistic is tempting, as others have said, it’s old-fashioned terminology and so over-used as to have become meaningless. If you’re trying to maintain the moral high ground, it’s usually better not to respond in kind. Having said that, I am ambivalent about Monckton as he can skewer AGW ideologues and camp-followers beautifully.

    Perhaps it’s better to describe the truth of the global warming advocates and ideologues. They are driven by misanthropic, ‘progressive’ ideology. They’ve turned a small, immature backwater science, climatology, into a highly politicised, political science, which will probably never recover. They believe in planning your and my lives, for our own good you understand. They believe in a powerful regulatory big state that they control. Their anti-industry, anti-chemical, anti- free-market and, despite the ‘hippy’ PC rhetoric, they are fundamentally anti personal freedom. They are anti almost anything modern and progressive, despite their endless over-use of the word. And, bless their post-imperial cotton socks, they’re really into eco/environmental imperialism and political power with a vengeance. Developing countries must not use modern agriculture methods, or ‘toxic chemicals’, they should stick to subsistence farming and, god-forbid, they mustn’t make electricity with fossil fuels. They must remain dependent, and poor and beholden to the beneficent West.

    Difficult to summarise this toxic constellation of pessimistic control-freakery. Totalitarian is good; I like eco-imperialism, and eco-fascist is tempting and anti-democratic is their constant state http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/garnaut-report-an-assault-on-democracy/. But none of these have the right bite. We need new words that resonate and tell-it-like-it-is, but not worn out words.

    As for Lord Monckton, he’s very clever, and fun and crazy, but I do wonder whether he’s a loose cannon that does our cause too much damage. The Reverend Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland was a gift to republican propaganda. They couldn’t have invented a better IRA recruiting sergeant. Does Monckton serve the same function for the eco-loon totalitarians?

  166. Dear Anthony,

    By looking at the bottom of this screen, and following this and other presentations and debates on this superb site – including the use of emoticons like star and sun and other Brand type symbols in presentations like that of Lord Monckton to make a statement – I am starting to get the meta-thought that your site is in the process of turning into a truly global site for heglian dialectic and conspiracy with all its implications, which must be a critical balancing act for the blog owner. Which is not necessarily a bad thing under the circumstances. I am just beginning to see whattsupwiththat with that viewangle.

    “Being is not to feel, not to look at and not imagine,
    but it is the pure thought and as such makes
    it the beginning.” -Hegel

  167. I will join this deep cultural divide with on one side Mr.Motl and Mr Pavelczyk, and on the other side those who have been living all their lives in a warm and fuzzy democratic world whare everybody is supposed to be nice.

    I belong also to the former.

    The swastika or the sickle&hammer are just symbols. Drawings, if you want. What matters is symbols of what.
    Like Mr Pavelczyk, I do not expect that Americans will understand because they simply can’t.
    But one has to say it anyway because an EARLY WARNING SYSTEM is what may save us.

    Those of us who have been living in a totalitarian system, regardless whether you call it, communist or nazi, know that there is, like Mr Motl said, NO qualitative difference.

    On the other hand, there are invariants that may warn rather early that something very bad is coming.
    Can you understand that this is NOT about science or being nice ?

    The signs are all there – intolerance, threats, lynching, reeducation, trials.

    In the 30′s there were also (very few) people who warned that in Germany something very bad was coming yet … Chamberlain was telling the media how very reasonable MISTER Hitler was and how it was important to be nice to him.

    C.Monckton is perfectly right. His analysis of the eco-nazis is perfectly correct and he is right to use the right symbol of this kind of movement. He could have used hammer&sickle instead, but I am afraid that people would not pay ENOUGH attention.

    P.S.:
    Several members of my family have been killed by Nazis (by communists too). And I can assure you that I am not the least bit shocked by the use of the right symbol , e.g: the swastika for the eco-nazi movement. I am more shocked by those here who weep crocodile tears and lament that C.Monckton does “us” a disservice by calling a spade a spade. My experience with totalitarian practices leads me rather to thank him.

    Political courage was never something that prevailed much in Western democracies. They begin to timidly react only when it’s too late and their own house begins to burn too.

  168. Dear Przemysław Pawełczyk,

    thanks for your synergy with me. It’s good to see someone who went through a similar enough background to think in a similar way. (I have only been 100 meters inside Poland, either in Krkonoše or High Tatras, both haha.) By the way, Polish EU budget commissioner, Janusz Lewandowski, just exposed himself as a skeptic – global warming is highly doubtful, he said. And Poland has vetoed the “improvement” of the 20% CO2 reduction plans by 2020 to 25%. Good for you.

    I think it is clear that global warming is much less “hot” a topic in post-socialist Europe than it is in Western Europe. There are almost no “thrilled” climate alarmist activists in our part of the world. And in my opinion, it’s clear that many of the people see that it’s a pretty similar hysteria and utopia that we remember from the recent past. People have had enough – for a century – of these forced unified opinions and of the isolation of everyone who has a different opinion than the politically correct one. And trying at least two versions of it – something that Poland has tried as well – may be a pretty insightful experience. It does seem to me that the traditional Western countries – including Australia – are missing some kind of immunity and are more likely to fall into a non-democratic way of thinking, and attempts to deny the similarities can’t save them. Quite on the contrary.

    Lord Monckton hasn’t lived in any totalitarian system so his thinking is based on a different experience than ours but he simply ends up, for various reasons, with conclusions that sound radical to Anthony and others.

    But my point is surely not to criticize Anthony. I understand that he’s successfully working on a nice public face of AGW skeptics (obviously, this conclusion won’t be shared by some of the most radical AGW alarmist bloggers) and the nice public face is inevitably judged by some standardized criteria of the contemporary Western societies – that could be labeled as politically correct criteria. No doubt, from this viewpoint, Lord Monckton’s propositions may be counterproductive.

    However, there are other things that may be counterproductive – and internal criticisms in between the skeptics might belong to this group, too. They show a lack of consensus etc. Note that this kind of internal criticism doesn’t appear on the alarmist side. You won’t find Real Climate or Joe Romm articles that denounce the latest claims that skeptics must be treated by tattooing, carbon monoxide, or many other treatments. Why don’t you find such things on Real Climate?

    Well, you might say that the only reason is that Anthony Watts is morally superior – so he isn’t afraid to criticize “his side”, either. That’s a part of the answer, but not the only one. The other one could be that the Real Climate people have rationally calculated that the radical alarmists who want to violently eliminate skeptics and similar things are actually doing work that is ultimately useful for the interests of the people at Real Climate and elsewhere. They do want to have someone who does the “dirty work” for them. They want bullies on their side. They enjoy them. They want to be surrounded by bodyguards. And given the problematic character of their activity, they do need such bodyguards or greenshirts, indeed. They will need many more of them if they want to impose and enforce some insanely devastating policies.

    Now, our side is “idealistic”, some people think. We don’t need anyone who shows his muscles. We will win purely by the pure holiness of our cause and because we’re right. Well, I am not so sure that it does work in this way in the real world. Despite the fact that the number of skeptical and alarmed people are comparable in the world population, it seems unquestionable to me that the amount of intimidation from the alarmists’ side is vastly higher than in the opposite direction. This is a part of their explanation why the alarmists keep on influencing so many important things despite democracy that would normally have worked out to produce a more symmetric outcome.

    So even though I understand that Anthony and others don’t like what they see, and they would prefer an optimum world, they’re afraid of consequences, I think that a more silent manifestation of the unity between the climate skeptics – despite their differences – could actually be more productive. Lord Monckton speaks about lots of things and different climate skeptics will agree with different percentages of these things, especially when it comes to “world government” etc. But it is surely not true that climate skeptics universally disagree with his points. I assure you that at least tens of millions of Americans totally agree with him – and it’s not just the most silly Republicans. So I would find it unfortunate if Lord Monckton were treated as a heretic by the “bulk” of climate skeptics. He is no heretic. And I’m happy that his talk in Australia is going to proceed as planned.

    All the best
    Luboš

  169. Thank you Tom. I come from a similar background and I recognised what this was all about years ago. Totalitarianism is not hard to recognise once you have lived under it. I thoroughly admire Christopher Monckton and, while I at first throught that perhaps this was a mistake, simply because it would give the warmists and the media another excuse to attack him while ignoring his his substantive message, I think you are quite right that some things simply need to be said. I believe his warning about world government before Copenhagen played a large part in derailing that that conference simply hope that this, too, can be some sort of circuit breaker to help people take a good close look at what is being steadily imposed on them.

    I’m from Australia too and can confirm that we are completely fed up with this incompetent and malignant government which is interested in nothing more than spending our money and squeezing us for more.

  170. TomVonk says:
    June 23, 2011 at 4:47 am

    Thanks Tom – you make some very good points.

  171. Luboš Motl says:
    June 23, 2011 at 5:04 am

    But my point is surely not to criticize Anthony. I understand that he’s successfully working on a nice public face of AGW skeptics (obviously, this conclusion won’t be shared by some of the most radical AGW alarmist bloggers) and the nice public face is inevitably judged by some standardized criteria of the contemporary Western societies – that could be labeled as politically correct criteria. No doubt, from this viewpoint, Lord Monckton’s propositions may be counterproductive.

    However, there are other things that may be counterproductive – and internal criticisms in between the skeptics might belong to this group, too. They show a lack of consensus etc. Note that this kind of internal criticism doesn’t appear on the alarmist side. You won’t find Real Climate or Joe Romm articles that denounce the latest claims that skeptics must be treated by tattooing, carbon monoxide, or many other treatments. Why don’t you find such things on Real Climate?

    I agree with most of what Luboš Motl says, but I disagree with the paragraphs quoted above. I think it is OK for internal disagreement to be aired in public. It shows the world that people on the sceptic side of the debate are capable of disagreeing agreeably, and are not so worried about their PR that they sweep such discussion under the carpet or get irrational with each other like the alarmists do. (e.g. the excommunication of scientists like Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Sr).

    Long live free and open debate, as practised here and supported by Anthony, who allows people who disagree with him to have their say, provided they can speak civilly. Chris Monckton knows the rules, and doesn’t use the ‘F’ word when he submits an article here. By the same token, Anthony may come to recognise that in the rough and tumble of street level politics, political rhetoricians like Monckton need to have all tools at their disposal when out on the hustings.

  172. 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

  173. There’s a difference between linking activist climate scientists and their supporters to specific war criminals and describing their behavior as ‘fascist’, which is a legitimate term if what they do actually conforms to Fascist aims and behaviours. You can read an excellent analysis of the similarities in collectivist movements, socialist and communist, in F.A. Hayeks ” Road to Serfdom”, eg Chapter 12, and Eugen Weber’s ‘Varieties of Fascism. Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century”

  174. Anthony, you certainly have a point. On the other hand, though, the parallels with the eugenics movement early in the 20th century are (forgive the term) undeniable.

  175. Deadman says:
    June 22, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    If the loons who try to order every aspect of my life would have their way, I shan’t even be allowed to call Mussolini a Fascist or Hitler a Nazi. When newspaper columnists intimate that I should be tattooed, or imprisoned or gassed because I heretically oppose their fraudulent, pseudo-scientific conjecture, then calling them merely wrong-headed is not quite strong enough. Sometimes, totalitarians, authoritarians, and all sorts of would-be-aryans have to be called by the right name—and Godwin’s law, surely, does not apply when discussing real,
    murderous, send-opponents-to-concentration-camps Fascists or Nazis.
    I’d liefer that Lord Monckton not display the svastika but I shall defend to a small degree of inconvenience his right to do so.==========agreed,
    is everyone forgetting the chaps who wanted any dissenters to their agw fantasies placed in camps and re educated? to be outcast.
    I have had the thought Fascist well tagged for Garnaut wong flannery and the rest well before lord M used it.
    he spoke not ONE word that wasnt spot on when he said it.
    sorry but as an Aussie whos listened to Guano(hes full of it) Monkton was probably too KIND.
    and that carefully hidden clause in the copenhagen dos sure looked like NWO by the Ipcc un collective to me.
    fees and fines and control of every signatory.
    central rule, over riding individual countries own rights?
    unelected and it would apear unremoveable just like the Eu mob.
    looking at local council addedums re climate(all for drought only) for land use and rights or lack of them for owners, farmers etc, the cigiar agenda 21 millenium muck is sure being rammed into laws that NO ONE was asked to vote or agree on.
    Moncktons perfectly correct and has the ba**s to say it, good on him.
    I am sick of being called a [snip] with its connotations, the accountant, and thats ALL he is..sure seems to be fascist to me. they can sledge people and its ok? but give it back and they howl blue murder?

  176. whats funnier?
    the news said they wouldnt censor news.
    haha ha…they have NO comment ability on most of their pro AGW items , and definitely none for this story, so support for Monckton can be supressed.
    abc radio will go to town on it., while theyve been rather nasty to sceptics in word many times.

  177. While some expected politically correct comments appear here from the U.K. and Western Europe, Australia, and the USA, I am inspired by our friends from Eastern Europe.

    Perhaps we can just dispense with these classifications and use terms famously coined by Donald Rumsfeld, Old Europe and New Europe ;-)

    There is a recent article that is tying much of this together …

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/vote-for-whoever-you-want-bailout.html

    … I wonder what citizens of the former Soviet Bloc, especially Lubos, think of that description vis-à-vis International Socialism in Europe (Bed-Wetters please note that the article is free of politically incorrect terms such as Nazi, Fascist and Communist). I am very worried for Europe, it seems to me that even Napoleon could not dream up such a plan. I also wonder why on Earth the former Soviet satellites would ever join this thing. Lubos?

    Once more I want to thank the citizens here from post-Communist nations for warning us of what you see so clearly. Being relatively free for over 200 years in the States and elsewhere can actually act like narcotics on the human spirit. Such a circumstance demands nothing short of an intervention. So please keep doing it no matter how much whining you hear from the addicts.

  178. Tallbloke, I agree with every word. I feel that Monckton’s use of the Nazi symbol was probably justified in the rough and tumble of street theatre, as you say. For those who are offended because relatives were killed by the Nazis, that’s a very big club and I’m a member a number of times over and I am NOT offended by Monckton’s use of the symbol in this case.
    Sorry Anthony, I really apreciate your constant battle to keep the debate civil and civilised, but I can’t agree with you on this one.

  179. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    June 23, 2011 at 5:55 am

    I have been a very bad Lord. My remarks about Professor Garnaut were unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike. Mea maxima culpa.

    Lord Monckton,

    your tongue is planted so far in your cheek it looks like you are chewing the biggest humbug in the sweetshop.

    Keep up the good work

  180. Jill Singer expressed the following views in the [Australian] Herald Sun:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sideshow-around-carbon-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212

    “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your
    strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some
    other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide. You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would
    your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.”

    Are skeptics supposed to remain silent while they are told to gas themselves with carbon monoxide,
    they are equated to d—–rs of the Holocaust, they are called flat-Earthers, and they are told that they
    have to have the word “D—-r” tattooed onto their fore-arms? Why is these offensive barbs somehow acceptable
    but it is absolute outrage to say that some global warming alarmists (e.g. Ross Gargnaut) are acting-like
    fascists?

    I did not intend to go to one of Lord Monckton’s talks here in Australia but now I will go out of my way to make sure that I attend his opening talk in Newcastle, N.S.W. on July 06 th.

  181. Ken Hall says:
    June 22, 2011 at 1:42 pm
    When some alarmists genuinely want to tattoo, imprison and even gas “disbelievers”, why the hell can we NOT draw the obvious comparison and invoke Godwin’s law?

    Anthony (Mod) is correct. What Monckton should have done is say that Garnaut was aligning with those advocating polices identical to the 3rd Reich. For that is indeed correct. What Monckton did was hyperbole, and that is where he failed. There are those in the debate – on the AGW side, that indeed appear to want to imitate the practices of Germany in the 30s and 40s. But not all do. however a good case can be made of “Birds of a Feather, Flock Together”.

  182. Having watched a video clip of this event, I believe Anthony has overreacted significantly and has failed to portray the actual event accurately. Monckton began the ‘Nazi’ section of his presentation with an exposition of Hitler’s policies re democracy, than continued with a very short outline of Fasciscm, as he sees, it through recent history while the swastika emblem was up on the left half of the screen. His tone was measured and reasonable, as were the points he made. If politicians’ actions fit the definition of being Fascist, fair enough to call it that way, in my opinion. A spade is a spade and renaming it ‘ a manual device for cutting and shifting soil’ does not change the fact that a spade is still a spade.

    REPLY: I haven’t overreacted at all. See my comments upstream. I have no issues with historic and factual comparisons, but swastika imagery in a planned powerpoint and his utterance of “Heil Hitler here we go” made it clear he went off script and into the realm of ad hom related to Garnaut. Monckton has made an apology, both here and in the Telegraph. – Anthony

  183. Given the turn of the debate, I would like to recommend a book:
    Timothy Ferris – The Science of Liberty (2010)
    It is about the direct relation between science and liberty.

  184. I’m disappointed that Lord M apologized! After all aren’t these the same people calling us ‘deniers’ as though we are denying the Holocaust ? Aren’t these the same people that have suggested tattooing our foreheads to thereby separate us into a group forever ostracized from ever again interfering with their scam? Aren’t these the same people who suggest it would best to just blow us up on the spot than hear anymore scientific skepticism – “no pressure”.

  185. I think Lord Monkton and other Brits need to bear in mind that we tend to link Nazism with authoritarian politics. In the USA Nazism is more strongly linked with the Holocaust. Thus in the USA the Swastika is more strongly linked with the gas chambers of Auschwitz rather than goosestepping storm-troopers as it is in the UK. Thus Americans tend to find use of the Swastika more inappropriate in these sorts of circumstances than Brits do.

    The terms “Fascist” or “Stalinist” seem to be understood by almost everyone in the same way so are preferable to using the term “Nazi”, if personal insults are appropriate at all.

  186. Lord MOCKton, thanks for gracing us with your presence.

    I see you retracted “Fascist” but let “Nazi” and “heil Hitler” stand.

    Since Professor Garnaut is acting like a Nazi but clearly isn’t an actual Nazzi and couldn’t be Hitler, using those terms is childish and ad hom.

    It would be more effective to point out his specific actions than bandy about lables.

    Respectfully, Scott Covert.

  187. Suggestions about tattooing or gassing people are deeply offensive to a great many people that lost family and loved ones during WWII. It is equivalent to hate speech.

    Tattooing and gassing were the tactics specific to the Nazi’s. This issues should be front and center of the debate, lest we forget the lessons of history.

    Many young people growing up today have only a very limited understanding of the events connected with WWII, the lives destroyed and how close the Nazi’s came to success. Except for the war effort, Hitler would likely have completed the A Bomb ahead of the USA, forcing all countries of the world to surrender unconditionally.

    Freedom is often taken for granted without the understanding of how quickly it can be taken away. While Moncton was political incorrect, his message is an important one.

    Talk of tattooing and gassing is the thin edge of the wedge. Once the public is conditioned to accept the suggestion, then comes action. Global domination and universal slavery may not be your dream, but it is the dream of leaders past and present. The ultimate achievement.

  188. There is a recent article that is tying much of this together …

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/vote-for-whoever-you-want-bailout.html

    All one needs to do is watch an episode of “Yes, Minister” to understand what is happening. Regardless of what party is in power, the bureaucracy serves the interests of the bureaucracy. They are not elected and can control which party is elected simply by sabotage of the current governments policies.

  189. ‘M of B’ is factual enough in comparing the political engine driving AGW alarmism with its German predecessor, but perhaps a tad tactless in electing to launch that missile at any one individual. Godwin’s Law is always best invoked in one’s original talk (or Power Point presentation, if you must use that format); if not, you just know that the ensuing argument is going to drown out your point. After all, ‘They’ – the drivers of the engine – don’t want people thinking too deeply about the Third Reich while ‘they’ are building the Fourth!

    Having said which, if his reference makes more people aware of the sort of vicious hostility coming from the alarmist camp these days, then well done that Lord. I appreciate Anthony’s distaste at the reference, but I cannot condemn Lord Monckton’s use of it.

    We should pay more heed to the comments here (and elsewhere) from those who have firsthand experience of living in authoritarian states: to them these are vile memories, not just debating points. Listen and learn.

  190. Well, the ship (science) has been hijacked and may be close to sinking; commandeered by those who Lord Monckton (LM) has decisively exposed to a great number of foolish AGW followers of that faith. However you view LM’s comments, turning of the cheek will not save the ship.

    The learning curve for reeducating the general public may take too long, too slow to the momentous inertia of current greed and hand wringing within the political arena.

  191. Let’s debate the facts, not sink to name-calling.

    This is totally wrong. I would go out of my way to cause offence. I like the Christopher Hitchens defence: “if you don’t agree with me, it’s because you’re stupid”.

  192. Whether planned or not, but it’s a rather clever tactic to give ample apologies after the fact since then even more want to know what was really so bad. And higher the viewer count the happier the Lord, I’m thinking. :p

  193. Why does he need to apologise?

    Who afterall started the ball rolling with ‘denier’ that is now insult #1 amongst agw zealots?

    Cal la spade a spade, if the shoe fits & all that etc.

  194. To affirm Luboš Motl , Przemysław Pawełczyk and others who have experienced such totalitarianism.
    Vaclav Klaus exposes the dangers of ecofacism in Blue Planet in Green Shackles

    President Klaus makes the case that policies being proposed to address global warming are not justified by current science and are, in fact, a dangerous threat to freedom and prosperity around the world. — Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, while pursuing an impossible utopian dream of a perfectly “natural” world. The supposed threat of human civilization against a fragile Earth has become an article of faith, especially in the realm of global warming activism. — “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism,” writes Klaus. “It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. . . . “Today, the global warming debate raging in both the United States and Europe has become extremely contentious. On both sides of the Atlantic, the debate has metastasized into cultural warfare against economic liberty,” writes CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. in the book’s foreword. “For that reason, pro-freedom voices are needed to reframe the debate to show how a free people can better address the challenges facing Western civilization. To that end, we are proud to publish Blue Planet in Green Shackles.”

    Having experienced such oppression, President Vaclav Klaus clearly exposes today’s oppressors:

    Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.

    I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism. . . . My central concern is – in a condensed form – captured in the subtitle of this book. I ask: “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is: “it is our freedom.” I may also add “and our prosperity”. . . .
    The whole process is already in the hands of those who are not interested in rational ideas and arguments. It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also – as a consequence of political decisions – in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality. It is in the hands of rent-seeking businesspeople who are – given the existing policies – interested in the amount of subsidies they are receiving and look for all possible ways to escape the for them often merciless, but for the rest of us very positive, general welfare enhancing functioning of free markets. An entire industry has developed around the funds the firms are getting from the government.

    Will we heed the words of the wise? Or but bow to political correctness?

  195. Theo Goodwin says:
    June 22, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Occasionally, someone will ask what Anthony will do when the climate wars are won. The answer is that the climate wars are one front in a much larger war. Yes, our opponents are communists rather than Nazis
    ================================================================

    I looks like Theo has moved on to other topics of discussion, but for others benefit,…..
    There isn’t any real distinction between the two ideologies, save for a nationalistic bent. (in this case it would both apply to the specific country, Australia (Nazis’) and the larger debate (the G in AGW) I’d expound further, but I’ve just got back from a minor bit of surgery, and am a bit slow on the uptake at the moment (anesthesia and pain meds running through me)….Usually, in the climate discussion that’s it would still allow me discuss things with warmistas, but in a contentious discussion with fellow skeptics, I’m not nearly as capable when up against a group of more formidable antagonists. :)

    tallbloke says:
    June 23, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    June 23, 2011 at 5:55 am

    I have been a very bad Lord. My remarks about Professor Garnaut were unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike. Mea maxima culpa.

    Lord Monckton,
    ==================================

    Well stated TB, well played M of B.

    Cheers to all……. (It may be beneficial for some to understand, that in this great world wide debate, we all have different roles.) Some roles are more prominent others not, but in great struggles and contests, attacking more than one front at the same time can be very effective. Watch your flanks, march briskly, and continue to gain ground. (Paraphrased from ……..sigh, a prominent Prussian whose name escapes me at the moment.)

    Best wishes to all

    James

  196. Regretfully, I noticed the lead WUWT post starts off with citing Godwin’s so-called ‘Law’.

    Godwin’s so-called ‘Law’? What a bunch of rhetorical nonsense. Who makes up this kind of social science fiction and political science subjectivity? Ahhhhh, it is the same humanities departments of universities dominated by post-modern philosophy who also feed us the PNS gobble-di-goop.

    The subjectivity inspired by invoking Godwin’s so-called ‘Law’ actually almost fatally sidetracks the real issue. The real issue is drawing actual parallels between the events inspired by the agendas of the IPCC/AGW/Ideological Environmentalist axis in certain countries and the events that occurred in the country of Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

    John

  197. Note to Lord Monckton

    Chris:

    Thankyou for your public retraction. I remember how you defended me and Niklas Morner when we were subjected to similar attack at St Andrews Uni. (see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938) so I was especially dismayed that you had made the same error.

    Our politics are poles apart but I know you to be the true gentleman that you are. And I will defend you as you defended me.

    Richard

  198. Dear David [Hagen],

    well yes, our president Klaus has said and written (not only in the book) very similar things, without specific names and slogans of the Nazi movement, however. ;-) Needless to say, Lord Monckton is close to President Klaus. I have recently contributed to Klaus’ 70th birthday Festschrift (an essay on the climate sensitivity). This info should be added to make it very clear that I don’t intend to be ashamed of this link – quite on the contrary, I am very proud.

    I hope that Anthony and others like Lord Monckton’s apology as a “full-fledged and classy”. It’s the kind of apology that doesn’t leave you in any doubts that Lord Monckton has apologized. I like this feature. However, whether it’s a good idea to start to apologize, I am less certain.

    My experience e.g. with Lawrence Summers’ apologies to the militant feminists in 2005 speak a pretty clear language. It was a devastating mistake for him to get on this path (about a week after his famous speech on women on science – he remained a man with a spine exactly for 1 week) because it would always be abused as a sign of Summers’ weakness and their thirst for power and ambitions would just continue to escalate and Summers was eventually forced to resign, anyway.

    Clearly, what really drives the alarmists up the wall about Lord Monckton are not references to the Nazis that they may be happy about because they may think that it hurts the skeptics at least in the eyes of some people. What drives them up the wall are his coherent explanations of some climate issues that naturally culminate in his conclusions that something is seriously wrong with the whole AGW movement and orthodoxy.

    All the best
    Luboš

  199. The Lord is not renowned for his use of temperate language. Neither is he regaled as having contact with current research. His slide show is a mishmash of inaccuracies which had ben thoroughly debunked by several informed commentators. He should really apologize for his misleading presentation of ideas, which he inaccurately describes as facts.

  200. Hugh Pepper:

    Your post is a classic fail. It is a list of unsubstantiated and untrue ad homs which tells much about you and nothing about Chris Monckton.

    Richard

  201. Monckton is right to warn against the surrender of sovereignty to international bodies claiming to work for “the planet”. And he is right to warn against the surrender to argument-by-authority.

    And he should probably stay with the science, even tho it can become frustrating when trying to attract a biased media for publicity, and in future leave the vile abuse to the so-called eco-fascists (or “deep ecology” as it’s known). I can’t judge Monckton’s views on Professor Garnaut with out knowing the context of the bigger picture, would many here say the same of Pentti Linkola? who is openly misanthropical, or David Foreman? who was criticized as being misanthropical by Murray Bookchin (via wikipedia).

    There is criteria for someone being misanthropical, Monckton believes Hitler and his fascism was misanthropical and he therefore draws similarities between those who are involved in the “deep ecology” and of course the symbolism of Misanthropy from his era, swastikas etc…that he is familiar with.

    This is a man who is drawing attention to how it actually is, We are all allowed to be skeptical of what ever issue there is, no matter how much intimidation, bullying or hateful threats of violence or boring slurs (“tattooing deniers”, “gassing skeptics”, “no pressure campaigns” etc…”) you hear from the spin of “deep ecology” proponents in today’s irresponsible media. The question is, does “deep ecology” include the theories of “CAGW” “Man Made Climate Change” or “Man Made Global Warming” the answer is Yes, absolutely Yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

  202. Our good friend Lord Monckton, like many brilliant and likeable British intellectuals who brighten our world with their colourful characters, may go over the proverbial top from time to time. Oopsie. But, as secure and big-hearted types usually deal with things, they respect the views of their friends, including their critiques, and are quick to admit their booboos and to make amends. From his official statement:

    “Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as ‘fascist’. I apologise humbly.

    This and his Lordship’s brief and classy apology to Mr Watt and all of us here who wagged our fingers, serves as a prime example of why Lord Monckton casts such a big shadow over his opponents. Of course, being the feisty chap he is, his Lordship can’t resist a good and fair shot into the other court:

    Will there be similar apologies from those who have called us ‘climate deniers’ or ‘denialists’, or who say we should be tattooed with our opinions, or imprisoned, or barred from Australia, or tried for ‘high crimes against humanity’?”

    Good questions and a fair challenge, but I wager that those whom the comments concern will not rise to the occasion for the simple reason that unlike his Lordship, they seem to be a petty, class-less and churlish lot. On that subject, I note that Mr Hugh Pepper has already served us with a peek preview of the kind of grace we may expect from the other side. Pity.

  203. Mr Feht,

    I have not forgotten you.

    Since apologies and declarations of noble principles seem to be popping up on this board …in predictable forum dynamics, I might add… let me extend my apology for my “pitiful …attempts at irony.” I do try too hard to be amusing sometimes, to play the forum clown. Eliciting a chuckle, a prime motivation in my life’s mission, should be a mitzvah and then, I might have my only chance to earn a few points….(here I go again) … or credits. Not in this case, obviously.

    I indeed blush at my naiveté for imagining that the medium of irony, much less a pitiful attempt thereof, would penetrate your dense ideological filtres. So, let me summarize and add to my points in a direct and hopefully more comprehensible manner.

    First, the village commissar bit, the one where you foam about insufficient loyalty and backbone amongst your comrades here is, frankly, embarrassing. I cringe to think that your dark grumblings about weaklings and traitors in our midst, along with the wild-eyed conspiracy rants might be the first post a newbie would see. Without agreeing or disagreeing, this is not about the substance of your convictions, but about your delivery.

    Secondly, sometimes a friend, such as our Lord Monckton, says or does something that someone might rightly or wrongly disagree with. In an open, moral, healthy and functional group, which I believe our world-wide skeptic community happens to be, courteous disagreements are its life blood. Without an honest, easy and rapid exchange of ideas, we will wind up quickly in the same quagmire as those other goys.

    And, thirdly and lastly, until war between Warmers and Skeptics has been declared and you impress us with your martial leadership, numerous legions and impressive materiel, do try to treat this “battle” as a policy conflict to be handled politically in a democratic manner, ethically and with appropriate etiquette. In a policy and public relations “battlefield” environment, one does not accomplish much with crude accusations, jingoistic lectures about the obvious and a barrage of flying spittle.

    Good day.

  204. Peter Kovachev:

    Having failed as a wannabe forum clown, you engage in a long, foundering barrage of baseless personal insults. Is that the best you can do?

    In everything you wrote above, there isn’t a single logical or factual argument; therefore, there is nothing that deserves an answer.

    P.S. Work on your writing style: it’s as talentless as photo portraits touched up in Photoshop.

  205. In this thread, I’m pleased to read a balanced discussion about Christopher Monckton’s small misstep into the minefield of Godwinland. I’m also pleased that Anthony insists on playing by Queensbury Rules–even when his adversaries are using nuclear weapons!

    Here and elsewhere, I’ve seen comparisons between between Warmist ideology and Fascism (the “Eco-fascist” label) on the one hand, and Communism (the “Watermelon” label) on the other hand. This may date me, but I’m reminded of a parody from Mad Magazine many years ago.

    Certs is a candy mint. No, Certs is a breath mint. Stop, you’re both wrong. Certs is a laxative!

    Warmism, which at the moment, eclipses all other environmental issues–legitimate and otherwise–has commonalities with the two traditional flavors of Totalitarianism. The closest comparison that I can make is with Khmer Rouge ideology. However I think that Warmism, and Green-style environmentalism in general, deserves to be recognized as an incipient Totalitarian flavor in its own right, promoted by 21st Century True Believers. We should all be brushing up on our Eric Hoffer.

  206. Erratum: My last sencence in the fifth paragraph above should read, “…as those other guys,” not goys.

    Lest anyone wrongly interpret my typo…resulting from texting while flying a passenger-filled 747 at 35 432 ft with a sleeping co-pilot…as a character-revealing Freudian slip, I assure them the word would have been capitalized and in its proper plural form, as in Goyim.

    Ok, I made up the flying bit; I’m actually typing one-handed on a mini laptop, in a Lamborghini Diablo, in the passing lane, with the roof off exposing the white leather seats and console…and it just started to rain.

  207. I struggle with this sort of thing. Unlike many of the folks who comment on this site, and who use Anthony’s material and postings regularly as research material, I am not a climate scientist; I am an historian. This means that I struggle manfully with radiative forcing equations, relying on second-year mathematical physics classes from a quarter-century ago to make my way through the arguments. But it also means that I pay attention even more attention to the sociocultural nuances of the “climate debate” than I do to the technical and scientific arguments. And one of the things that is unequivocal about much of the extreme end of the alarmist camp is their explicitly exterminationist position. There are undeniable historic parallels between those who sterilize themselves to avoid Gaia-poisoning children, and those who sterilized “mental defectives” in the name of eugenics. The only difference between such lunatics and the Nazis is that the Nazis were racist, whereas the extreme environmental crowd are species-ist. I’m not sure that advocating the extinction of the whole of the human race is in any way morally superior to attempting to engineer the extermination of only a small part of it.

    I don’t call my scientific or political opponents Nazis, and I walk away from debates where ad hominem arguments displace sound science. But that doesn’t mean that the shoe doesn’t sometimes fit. There are historical parallels for tattooing and gassing one’s opponents, after all, and they are obvious to anyone with even a cursory familiarity with the atrocities that were committed in the past century, all in the name of ideological purity. Maybe pointing out the comparisons isn’t “cricket”; I’m not sure. But the comparisons aren’t always inaccurate.

  208. I have to agree that his reference to the photo and saying “Heil Hitler, on we go,” said Lord Monckton in discussing Prof Garnaut, as a quote was displayed beside a swastika.

    However that Garnaut’s proposals are indeed a description of economic fascism and should have been stated it that way.

    Attacking what the person says is far far better than attacking the person who said it.

  209. Lord M in a moment of ire
    Cast fuel to the flames on the fire
    Now he’s really contrite
    But try as he might
    He can’t stop Jules fanning them higher

  210. Maybe the best commentary ever on this blog! I stand with the Europeans and Aussies who support Monckton.

    The message for us here in the US is to get active in politics; open your wallets to those who oppose the AGW propaganda and thought control; be active in elections; and vote early and often ;) (there are many dead, illegal, and simply invented “voters” that we have to overcome).

    For those who are members in professional societies, again be involved. Look at who is seeking the “secretary” position in the society (recall that the head of the Soviet Communist Party was “The Secretary”). This position controls entirely the communications process of the society and what in fact is communicated. Often, the President is just a figurehead. I suspect that if we dissected the governing bodies of all these scientific organizations that are AGW supporters, we would find that the Secretary is a true believer and has moved mountains to sway the board or other governing body to support his beliefs.

    It’s one thing to read and comment on a blog. It’s another entirely to put your beliefs to work in a way that can actually effect an outcome that you believe is sensible. If you are really concerned about your future, or that of your kids or grandkids, then take a deep breath, commit to doing something about it, and act.

    Lord Monckton is acting. Anthony Watts is acting. What are you doing?

  211. You have vanquished me, Mr Feht. Here I am, a pitiful heap expiring on the bloody battleground, bereft of facts or logic, without talent of any kind and, worst above all, unworthy of a serious response from you. Are we done now?

  212. tallbloke says:
    June 23, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Lord M in a moment of ire
    Cast fuel to the flames on the fire
    Now he’s really contrite
    But try as he might
    He can’t stop Jules fanning them higher

    Bravo HoN, encore encore

  213. A good apology, made necessary by political correctness.

    I think Adolph and his socialist workers party were a good example of very bad politics to say the least. And, treating anyone the way he and his followers treated minorities was clearly criminal.

    However, I wonder if, before Adolph seized power, there were any “activists” comparing him and facism/naziism to a past pariah. Were those activists silenced because of their bad form?

    I think fascism is a problematic ideology, not merely because the nazi version resulted in mass murder. The fascist philosophy should be identified wherever it rears it’s ugly head, if only as a warning. Are we getting to a point now where climate catastrophe non-believers will be persecuted?

    Perhaps Lord Monckton should have been more subtle. Perhaps.

  214. “DN says:

    The only difference between such lunatics and the Nazis is that the Nazis were racist, whereas the extreme environmental crowd are species-ist. ”

    I must disagree with this statement. One of the hallmarks of collectivism is to create collectives, the most common is “race”. Today race means pretty much anything that can be created out of thin air as long as it furthers the “agenda”. Hitler did this with the german/ayran/national socialist “race”. Japan did this as well… nothing drives me more up the wall wanting to scream then reading a text book that says we were racist against japan… and in case anyone doesn’t know IT’S A FKING COUNTRY/NATIONALITY NOT A FKING RACE… anyone claiming we were racist against japan should be shot on sight unless they are also claiming we were racist against the germans…

    To we have many “races” highspanish(hispanic), mexican, etc, etc, etc, etc 100,000x where every issue is sub divided into “special races” aka non-white male and everyone gets their own little group. This is at the very center of global warming ideology. The names have changed but the belief and style are the same. The highspanish “race” is in fact a direct result of the fascism from spain and is exactly the same as “hitlerism” just is “francoism”.

    For the warming cultists they are the gaian “race”(enlightened, intelligent, blah blah blah, etc, etc, etc) using a similar “ethnic” or other joke excuse to say “we are the better group”. In the end its just more racial supremacist “science” used to “cull” out the “unneeded/weaker/stupid” sections of “humanity”.

    Eugenics is everywhere nowadays they just use bigger or different words to express the same belief system. In fact its truly scared just how little has changed when you peel back the science to its simplest arguments and direction of action.

  215. If this was a debate about real world science,fair enough,stick with the high standards and use restraint.
    Seeing it’s about government with an agenda to rip you off,KNOWINGLY using fraudulent so-called science,then using the “Nazi” reference is completely appropriate
    Giving appeasement to fascists never work’s,ask Chamberlain.

    “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an> IRATE<, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." – Samuel Adams

  216. Cool but, the claim this was a spur of the moment anger thing, seems strange given that there was a prepared slide with a swastika sticker in the presentation that’s more like a well planned spur of the moment thing.
    But sadly this is far from the first time he has made such remarks his own vids on Youtube regularly make such references to nazis and one rather bad one accosting some teenagers and repeated calling them hitler youth hardly adds to his reputation in the same vid he is asked to stop doing this by the 20somthing minder of these kids (who are at a conference) Monckton then says the same thing to him, the man quietly informs Monckton he is Jewish, which seem to make no difference to Monckton at all.

  217. Mike Borgelt
    …wasn’t it Barry Goldwater who said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” ….
    Senator Goldwater lost.

  218. Good to read this, good to read this here.
    Apology by Monckton accepted.
    “We don’t need to weaken our position on our interpretations of the data uncertainty and the science problems by committing rhetorical suicide.” Fine words by Anthony, a rhetorical phoenix :)

  219. Dan,

    Regarding your video and comments, this is quite different. From what we can see, the “kids,” as young adults now all seem to be called, weren’t just hanging out like little wall flowers at the conference, to be “accosted” by Lord Monckton. They had just finished an organized disruption of a conference, a tactic frequently used, popularized and identified with the Hitlerjugend. His Lordship, who looked pretty angry, was clearly addressing their disruption tactics, comparing them, rightly, to those of the Hitler Youth. True, this effective tactic of using children and youth to disrupt and intimidate, while enjoying protection has been used by others, but everyone knows about Hitler Youth, so it would have been pointless to refer to Soviet Pioneers or the Pol Pot version. I’m not a big fan of using Nazi comparisons myself, but his Lordship has obviously a different take on the tacticals and I can’t fault him for that, unless he veers off into specific personal attacks or over-the-top comparisons which harm the skeptic side.

    I would be far more sympathetic to the left’s complaints about general comparisons with Nazis if they themselves dropped this comparison from their lexicon, especially when they wrongly and obscenely direct it against Israel and its supporters. As for the bearded “youth” claiming to be Jewish, my question for him would be, if your sense of Jewish identity is so important to you, why are you aligning yourself and wasting your time with these people and using such tactics at a time of dangerously rising world-wide antisemitism and unprecedented attacks on the legitimacy and existence of the Jewish state?

  220. Dan says:
    June 23, 2011 at 9:18 pm
    Cool but, the claim this was a spur of the moment anger thing, seems strange given that there was a prepared slide with a swastika sticker in the presentation that’s more like a well planned spur of the moment thing……
    ————————————————
    I applaud anyone with the courage to, peacefully, stand up to those who represent totalitarian/fascistic ideologies and their methods of coercion, whether the ideologues are naive youth, cynical climate “scientists”, or opportunistic politicians.

    Monckton has my vote..

  221. Dan says:
    June 23, 2011 at 9:18 pm
    Monckton then says the same thing to him, the man quietly informs Monckton he is Jewish, which seem to make no difference to Monckton at all.

    Dan, not to say you are, but your statement smacks of racism and anti-semitism. Monckton clearly states that “as long as they act like…”, and re-iterated the point. That the man in question is a Jew is irrelevant – unless you somehow attach a handicap to just being a Jew – which as I stated at the beginning is very racist and anti-semetic. The 20 year old man is a human, and can act like a saint, sinner, pope or idiot. His religion and/or ethnicity is not an excuse of or justifcation for any of his actions – just like any other man or woman.

  222. I find the term “denier” is just bad, with its obvious association with holocaust denial. Those guys throw the word around with something approaching glee, like children suddenly gaining permission to use a “bad word.” I don’t recall ever hearing an apology from one of them, no matter that it is in fact a dirty, lowdown lie given the many legitimate scientific questions regarding AGW as per the recent Supreme Court comments…

    The man’s apologized. Let it go..

  223. 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

    “Keep my cool”? Huh? It was a prepared slide.

  224. Moderate Republican,

    Quit your incessant nitpicking. Lord Monckton promptly made a sincere apology. Compare that honorable action with the reprehensible scientific fraud, charlatanism and misconduct practiced by Mann’s clique and their claque of true believers, including the 10-10 clowns and their ilk, and Steven Schneider, who advised lying to further the alarmist agenda, and Phil Jones, who was so delighted at John Daly’s death, and the conniving shenanigans found throughout the Climategate emails, where they strategized on how to make the journals toe their line and how to get rid of skeptics who were too honest for them, and… well, you get the picture. When have any of them offered a sincere, no strings attached apology like Lord Monckton’s?

    Run along now to Skeptical Pseudo-Science and try to find a talking point to rebut the glaring discrepancy between scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists — and the self-serving alarmist crowd.

    Take your time, I’ll be waiting.

  225. Hat tips to Smokey, Lubos, Slabadang, Deadman, Wil, David Hagen, Jim Karlock, boballab, Dave, DesertYote, Przemysław Pawełczyk, Alexander Feht, Temp, Legatus, Tucci78, Val Majkus, Blade, Tom Vonk, Ferd Berple and a number of others, forgive me if I have left anyone out. All of you made excellent points in my opinion.

    While I can appreciate and defend Anthony’s desire to pursue cordial discourse, we must recognize the whole intent of the opposition- and say with respect I believe Anthony is incorrect in this case. It is not a matter of science to them, hence the problem in engaging debate to start with. Al Gore wherefore art thou oh Al etc. It is the opposition that is vile and repugnant and failure to recognize such is failure to recognize that rain is wet. They mean to rule the world by force and we should well see this at this point. There is a storm brewing and Lord Monckton is justified to decry the face of the enemy as it is blatant. Failure to recognize reality will not stop its impending doom. See the history of the world for numerous references. Chamberlain is singing now.

    Decorum and moral high ground are of little value from the bottom of a pine box in the bottom of a hole- if we are fortunate enough to even receive such gracious treatment from the Tyrants. The only thing left of moral high ground will be the ebbing tide of blood from the corpse of the civil and righteous and the remains of their distant memories under the boots of the Tyrants. See all- Eco-nazi /fascist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist etc-histories and the hundreds of millions of lives that they have massacred. See the history of DDT if one is having difficulty drawing the string of logic to Eco-Nazism/fascism. One can cut as many facets into a diamond as one likes and while it changes the appearance of the diamond, it is still a diamond. Failure to recognize ones enemy when they are boldly and literally defining you as such is a dangerous game to lose. I realize there are some that are open to reasonable discussion of the issue, I don’t believe that is the case under discussion here.

    I have frequently been labeled privileged and lucky for living in the USA. This is of course not the case. The escape of my great grandfather from Lithuania, hiding under a pile of fish in the back of a truck gambling the soldiers bayonets would miss when they ran the fish through to check for fleeing citizens was an outcome of a personal decision. Providence is a measure of choice and my ancestors made the decision to come to the US and flee from tyranny. In the future, if the current trend continues, there will be no place left to flee to or from. So much for freedom and so much for the right to self determination and human rights.

    I shall take a quote from Churchill “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”, this is of course an adaptation of Edmund Burke. While words and ideas are powerful things and can still win the day, tyrants wish to do away with them under the edge of a blade and at the end of a barrel -oppression is never kind.

    Godwin’s Law is an illogical assertion no matter who invokes it. It is simply a fancy way of describing a logical fallacy, and frequently incorrectly by those who use it. Logical fallacies are usually engaged in by those who are incapable of debating the merits (Fraudulent Republican for example) or are unaware of the boundaries of logic. I am quite surprised by the outcry against Lord Monckton here.

    I find it shocking that some of the sheep in this thread are upset when someone alerts them that they are being led to slaughter only to become upset that someone has told them that they are sheep. Why are they not upset that they are to be slaughtered?

    I hope that civil discourse wins the day indeed, but we should not fool ourselves into believing that it will be the case simply because we are right. I believe most of the people posting here work for that and have confidence it can be achieved, but it is not written in stone and our opponents are most assuredly planning otherwise as they have stated repeatedly. Veritas vos liberabit – Truth will always win out, but there is often a terrible price to be paid for said truth to win out.

    My best to you Anthony, your website is an excellent forum for excellent discussions, but I disagree on this one.

  226. Churchill warned about Hitler but many people liked Hitler. Example: (there are countless others) Edward VIII toured Nazi Germany after he abdicated. Churchill became increasingly isolated for what were at the time ” radical” views.

    There is a wake up call here!

    Hitler was immensely popular!! He created strong Nationalism. He believed every citizen had a duty to place the needs of the Nation before the Indivdual. He unleashed a grand popular groundswell of pride and collective duty to the Fatherland. People were connected by their race. In summary, they felt connected;Their lives had profound meaning; They swelled with pride and duty.

    Nationalism = Environmentalism (it is the movement that unites us)
    Fatherland = Earth or Gaia (to what we owe our collective duty)
    Race = Nature (what connects us, what is pure, as distinguished from man-made things)

    Read the wiki definition and apply it to Environmentalism, Gaia, Nature

    Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics.[3] Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation’s rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.[4] Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[5] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state.[6]

    M of B may be wrong to draw Nazi comparisons due to the hideous things the Nazis did after 1933, however, if one is to look at what happened between 1922 and 1933 then it is easy to find many deeply concerning parallels. A generation of children were brainwashed in such a manner that hideous things became possible (ultimately individual rights were successfully subjugated to the supra personal collective cause). To a large extent the rest of the world stood by and watched this total train wreck (and that is a euphemism!) happen. Remamber that most ordinary Germans were initially proud of the cause and felt renewed esteem (who wouldn’t? look at MASLOW) and no doubt willingly sent their children to youth camp. By the time these ordinary Germans eventually saw where this was going, they were too frightened to stop it and did not begin to know how to stop it as those who tried were ultimately risking the lives of themselves and their families.

    It is wake up time!

  227. While I agree that it’s best to keep the moral high ground, since we have science on our side, I find it interesting that the media find it okay when “alarmists” call we realists “deniers” and call for our deaths, but God forbid “we” throw a slight comment their way!

  228. Matt in Houston and Jeremy,

    Both of you make very good arguments about the seriousness, depth, historical and political parallels and the threat this scam poses to our civilization. Most Skeptics, you must surely realize, are aware of these arguments and those, like myself, who lack the scientific literacy to evaluate the issue on its scientific merits alone, wound up on the Skeptic side because they saw some things similarly.

    Disagreements over specific tactics, presentation styles, strategies and substance, though, should not label some of us as traitors, ideological weaklings or sheep. We are not a political party, a philosophical creed or a religion. We have no catechisms or ideologies, and disagreements are just that; disagreements, not heresy or treason. In this case, respected people, like Anthony Watt, made a good case to Lord Monckton and he agreed with the critique. Not because he is knuckled-under due to PC pressure, as some insultingly suggested, but because he is big enough to recognize and admit a mistake. I am certain that his Lordship being who he is, would have no trouble with mounting a good defense of his presentation if he felt that he was in the right.

    His Lordship’s apology, if I may remind, is case-specific; it is not an admission that comparisons which point to parallels with Nazis or fascism, or even charges of conspiratorial behaviour by big business, eco activist organizations and governments are false or off the table. The problem, though, is that by themselves, such arguments are universally resisted as hyperbolic, “airy-fairy” opinion which rightly or wrongly paints us not as skeptics, but as marginal nutters to be dismissed. We face an opposition which can command nations, international political institutions, industries and literally, trillions of dollars, and we can’t afford to be as careless, insulting or in-your-face as the Warmists. Also, it’s thanks to their heavy-handed, alarmist and dictatorial tactics that the Warmists are losing the war of ideas. We want to make real changes, rather than to gloat over a few minor rhetorical victories, I’m guessing. We have little else but a few blogs, some sympathetic ears, real facts and good science, but with our wits, and our integrity, and with intelligence and ethics as our currency, I still believe that we are better-than-evenly matched.

  229. Interestingly the swastika has been widely used as a sacred symbol in Hinduim, Buddhism, and other religions for 2 or 3 thousand years. It is a shame it has become stigmatized in the western world due to its adoption by the nazis. The Big Buddha statue in Lantau, Hong Kong has a huge swastika in front of it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

  230. Indeed, Andy – it is not dissimilar to the triskele (spelling?) – think of the Manx flag and other examples. This is old symbolism, resurrected for various purposes at various points along the line. But regarding the swastika in its current format, the memory of its application is still too young. That’s why the hardcore punks used to wear swastika armbands – to shock and/or offend.

    I disagree with the very unpleasant tattooing comment alluded to, but an examination of the “why don’t you try breathing it?” (now that ain’t compulsory gassing, c’mon folks) comment just says to me exasparation – we all go OTT at times but deep down we all know it doesn’t help. I try not to use the D-word too often (preferring Opposition – as in political, because that better describes it). But it is also important to remember that the concept of Denialism was first advocated by Freud, who was dead before 1939 was out. It wasn’t based on anything more than one perfectly human response to a difficult situation.

    Back on-topic: Monckton, I suspect, knew exactly what he was doing. Unless people have failed to notice, he is a master of theatre – his apology above is wonderfully theatrical even by the standards of us British. And on the show goes! Because I ask you all this: how much more attention has he drawn to himself with this performance?

    Answers on a beermat to the House of Lords ;)

    Cheers – John

  231. Monckton’s circus act is very entertaining but unfortunately incorrect in virtually everything he states.

Comments are closed.