Note to Lord Monckton: this isn't helping

Fully agree!
Brgds/TJ

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.

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.

Remember the button? The one used to blow up children who did not join the “Klimate Youth”?
I think Monckton is being restrained.

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.

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.

Escalation is contagious.

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….

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.

Dear Anthony,
I appreciate your self-evident effort to be the holiest man among the saints. 😉 It’s not the first time I see it. You always want the skeptics to be the most likable guys, and so on. On the other hand, I think it’s more important to look at the content. And sorry to say – I think that Lord Monckton’s description is pretty much valid. The discussion about Mr Garnaut’s personal plans is legitimate because he is just way too important in Australia and I think that your article has actually discussed these factual matters less deeply and more superficially than Lord Monckton’s speech.
Garnaut’s report wasn’t considered an assault on democracy just by Lord Monckton but even by completely mainstream political leader of Australia, Tony Abbott, see:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/garnaut-report-an-assault-on-democracy/
Garnaut really wants the tax rates etc. to be decided by an unelected junta. It is OK for you to avoid the word “fascism” as a matter of principle and recommend it to WUWT readers but I don’t think you really have the credentials to prevent others – everyone else – from asking and answering the question. Lord Monckton asked the question whether Garnaut’s words and actions may be understood as fascism and he has decided that the answer is Yes. And I understand where Lord Monckton is coming from. Now, I also know that the alarmists would love to link the skeptics to many bad things, including the Nazis, but there’s still a difference. What Lord Monckton says is supported by some facts and tight analogies – actual plans how to reorganize the (Australian) society; what the alarmists are saying is not supported by anything.
More generally, I have found climate skeptics to be frustratingly toothless in many contexts – the “lukewarm” people just got used to the fact that the climate skeptics should normally be kicked into just like the Jews in the Germany of the 1930s because this is the approach that’s prevailing and sold as “normal” – and I consider Lord Monckton to be a refreshing counterexample of a person who shows that the skeptics don’t just offer their other face whenever they’re slapped on the first one – because this is not a path to the victory (and not even dignity) in the real world.
By the way, I forgot to add an appropriate picture of Ross Garnaut:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ross_garnaut.jpg
All the best
Lubos
REPLY: It is certainly valid to compare policies and performance in a historical context where it is merited, Godwin’s law provides for such things:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Snip. No d-word, please, even by reference. ~dbs, mod.]

Monkton! To the corner. One month time out for you.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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)

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.

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.

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…

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 .

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.

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

“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

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

@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.

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.

Anthony, please read this book. You will find Lord Christopher Monckton at least knows what he is talking about.
Kensal Press, 1985
ISBN 0-946041-33-4
Blood and Soil: Walther Darré and Hitler’s Green Party
by Anna Bramwell

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Joshua,
Just as a matter of interest, how old are you?

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.

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.

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…)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

Ooops. I might have slipped a bit of my own vitriol in there with that radical nutbar comment.
JE

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.

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.

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

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?

[snip -DDT is waaay off topic – Anthony]

“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.

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.

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:

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.”

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.

Dang…..spell cops, Sorry!!!!! …..they’re ….not their.

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/

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

TomVonk,
Chamberlain has been on my mind, too,throughout this thread.
We have been too polite for too long with liars and thieves.

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

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.

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.

‘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.

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”.

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.

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