Last weekend I posted an essay on what I considered to be a pointless invocation of Godwins Law by my friend James Delingpole:
The battle of the pointless Nuremberg insults: Romm -vs- Delingpole
(Note: For those of you who don’t know, Delingpole was the first to pick up on Climategate and give it MSM legs in the Telegraph, for that we owe him gratitude. )
In my essay I had harsh words for people on both sides of the climate debate, pointing out where there’s more than enough instances of blame to go around. Both sides have fallen into the Godwin’s Law trap. From Wikipedia:
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
When James invoked Nuremberg comparisons, he became another Godwin’s Law statistic, joining some other loud voices on the AGW advocacy side of the debate.
Normally, when you point out where they’ve fallen into such a rhetorical trap, especially with friends, they thank you for helping them to realize this. I was quite surprised to find that Mr. Delingpole has made not one, but two critical responses to my essay:
In the Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100211704/apologise-to-michael-mann-anthony-id-rather-eat-worms/
In the Spectator: http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8885551/no-i-wont-say-sorry-even-to-a-friend/
After contemplation of his reaction, I wrote a thank you letter to James for the kind words that he did mention about me (to which he responded positively), and I have now condensed the problem of our differences down to what I believe is a simple misunderstanding on Mr. Delingpole’s part.
I wrote in my original essay:
My point is, no matter who says it, in whatever context, it will turn into a shouting match no matter how many qualifiers or caveats you attach to it, and we simply don’t need it, because all it does is polarize the tribal nature of the climate debate even further.
To Delingpole, take a cue from Dave Roberts at Grist: fix it and apologize. To Mann, Romm, and others, clean up your own house before taking your outrage further.
James took that as me suggesting that he should apologize to Dr. Michael Mann. No, I’d never make such a silly suggestion, because while Dr. Mann does have a right to be upset at what Mr. Delingpole wrote, as is typical of Dr. Mann, he took the issue, made it his own, inflated it, ran with it, and added his own brand of specially seasoned Team Outrage Sauce to it:
Should we be surprised at this inflation of Delingpole’s Godwin’s Law rhetorical flourish to “calling for my murder”? No, not at all, because Dr. Mann is quite good at taking small insignificant bits and turning them into issues, it’s what he does as his hockey stick critics will tell you.
But here’s where I think James missed a critical point, and that might be my fault for not making it clearer in my initial essay. I think my mistake was dashing off my original essay too quickly, which left some things open to interpretation.
I wasn’t suggesting James apologize to Dr. Mann, nooo, I was suggesting that James apologize to climate skeptics.
Why? Well, consider what goes on in the climate blogosphere on an almost daily basis. Since AGW proponents are having a hard time successfully arguing the science these days, what with the pause, climate sensitivity, IPCC modeling -vs- reality and other issues not working out like they hope, and with the public cooling their interest, AGW proponents rely more and more on rhetorical tricks to make their points. We see more and more hyperventilated media claims of every bit of odd weather being caused by global warming, only later to discover they are nothing but hype. We see desperately silly claims of “anything goes” when it comes to connecting AGW to weather, where no matter what the forecast and result, the unseen hand of AGW is to blame.
But, probably the most desperate examples being used by AGW proponents are the execrable tactics pioneered by Dr. Stephan Lewandowski of the University of Western Australia and his sidekick John Cook of Skeptical Science. Their tactic is the same as what was once employed in the communist USSR, a political abuse of psychiatry: paint your opponent as being mentally aberrant.
And, it is we individual climate skeptics who are the ones having to fight those rhetorical battles in the blogospheric trenches. We’ll now be in a defensive position over Delingpole’s article.
My issue with James Delingpole simply had to do with handing our opponents another tool to beat us up rhetorically with. When they want to use a broad brush to paint all climate skeptics as nutters, the last thing you want to do is indulge their fantasy by invoking Godwin’s Law, giving them rhetorical ammo that they’ll re-purpose and fire back at us. One thing I’ve learned is that climate extremists have no shame, they’ll take any issue and throw it back at us with wildly inflated claims, just look at Dr. Mann’s tweet above to see this in action.
In his letter to me James wrote that:
As a scientist you are inevitably going to think this is all about the science. it isn’t – and as I documented very carefully in Watermelons – it never was.
No, I’ve never thought that. While James and I fight the battle using different tools at our disposal, we both know that that battle lines of global warming/climate change are constantly blurred between science and politics. Some days they are entirely interchangeable as Al Gore, James Hansen, Joe Romm, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Bill McKibben routinely demonstrate to us.
I simply think we shouldn’t hand our opponents new weapons (such as Godwin’s Law eruptions) that they will inevitably use against us; it just isn’t a good strategy. For those in the blogospheric trenches who will now be forced to defend Mr. Delingpole against hyperinflated claims of “calling for my murder” like Dr. Mann has made, I think Delingpole should offer a simple mea culpa to them for the extra difficulties they will now face in the battle.
James also wrote this in his letter to me:
We’re free and open in expressing our differences. Compare and contrast the way, for example, after Gleickgate the greens/alarmists throughout the blogosphere and the MSM pretty much closed ranks and got behind Gleick regardless of the gravity of his crime. Our side would just never do that. If any one of us was involved in serious malfeasance like identity theft, we’d be quick to condemn it.
Indeed we would, we police our own, which is why I’m pointing out this Godwin’s Law instance to James.
James does make some very good (and entertaining) rhetorical points though about the eco-oriented left , and you can read about them in his book: Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m have great respect for both of you. I hope this blows over. We are all on the same side.
For those of ous without science degrees, but who believe are being screwed by those who call themselves ‘climate scientists’, I think James Delingpole does a first class job. I hope you both continue to sing from the same hymnsheet.
I’ll second that.
I like Delingpole’s work and have a copy of Watermelons, but I think in this case you’ve got it about spot-on Anthony.
Never apologize. Your’e up against thieves, charlatans, and bitter misanthropes who would blithely ruin millions of lives if they had their way. Stay in their face, never back down, meet them wherever you find them with clenched jaw and closed fist. Mock them, berate them, and spit on their views. I’ve seen nothing in seven years of following this that makes me think they deserve otherwise. Delingpole is my hero.
The problem is the AGW crowd does not need an issue, they simply believe which is why this is political and not a science matter. In Nazi germany it was settlled by scientists no less that Jews, Homosexuals were subhumans, the only debate was how subhuman. In the AGW world the issue of man caused global warming is settled, the only debate is how fast is the world going to hell. I find it hard to believe that your resonable, lets all be resonable style will work when the Hitlers of the AGW crowd are saying you are in effect subhuman.
There may be time when a comparison to the NAZIs is appropriate. Consider the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. It authorizes the armed forces to detain WITHOUT TRIAL anyone thought to be involved in terrorism. That includes US citizens captured in the US. The “without trial” part is very disturbing. It violates the 5th and 6th amendments to the US Constitution. Without a trial the government doesn’t have to prove you did anything wrong, and you get no opportunity to proclaim your innocence. They only have to say you’re guilty and then you’re off to Guantanamo. Does that sound like America or NAZI Germany?
Add my name to those who agree with your approach. Mr. Delingpole is correct on many issues but he went overboard this time and handed Michael Mann a stick with which to beat all those who have been pointing out the multiple faults in both his science and ability/willingness to defend it.
Dittos!!
I am a skeptic not to say a denier. There is no need for Mr. Delingpole to apologize to me. My sentiments are about the same as Mr. Mangan may be even stronger. Of course Mr. Watts can say what he likes on his blog or for that matter anywhere. But sugar, syrup and treacle have no place on the battlefield.
REPLY: “sugar, syrup and treacle have no place on the battlefield” agreed, but I’m not advocating that. I say: “don’t hand them new weapons of your own making”. – Anthony
‘the last thing you want to do is indulge their fantasy by invoking Godwin’s Law’….
‘Their tactic is the same as what was once employed in the communist USSR’ excuse me Mr
Watts are you not using the same tactics now?
REPLY: No, not at all. Lewandowsky has published “peer reviewed” papers (though one has been put on hold for the moment due to questionable tactics) using ginned up opinion data gleaned from AGW proponent blogs to claim that we are “nutters”. There’s a big difference between trying to create faked science and having an opinion about an issue. – Anthony
Really fine article, Anthony. To the extent that you are striving to prevent our side from giving rhetorical ammunition to the other side, I am with you. However, when that effort becomes a restraint on our side then the other side has won yet another skirmish in their war to control the conversation. In this case, you are on safe ground. There is no loss to our side if we refrain from referring to Nuremberg or related matters.
Godwin’s Law is a specific case of a general theory I have called “The Principle of Natural Acceleration”:
The Principle of Natural Acceleration: the principle that all human systems have feedback mechanisms that drive the system to increase in character. This increase continues until a crisis point is reached, at which time the systems devolve into chaos and then catastrophically stop. Shortly thereafter, if the same conditions are prevailing as before, the system starts up again as before, to inevitably go through the same cycle of growth, sharp increase in severity, until the system is in chaos and catastrophically fails once again.
Some examples:
1. Society at peace with its neighbours that go to war,
2. The witchcraft persecutions of Europe in general, Bermuda and Salem in specifics,
2. Junior-high gossip that leads to bullying, suicide or murder,
4. Stockmarket runs,
5. Promotions such as North Dakota Bakken shale oil, shale gas in Britain, gold fever in the Philipines.
I’ve experienced it in aerobics classes when the music stops, the instructor leaves the room to fix the music with the instruction to “keep the beat going”: the pace picks up, flailing ensues and finally everyone but a mad keener in the front row stops and awaits the return of the aerobic instructor.
The Principle of Natural Acceleration is biological, not just human. In the animal kingdom Natural Acceleration is seen in populations of predator-prey where one both have large population growth potentials but of different time spans, such as foxes and rabbits. A burst of rabbit population leads to a burst of fox population that, in a kill ratio (warm-blooded mammals) of 10 prey to 1 predator, rapidly drops the prey population below sustainable predator levels. The foxes starve to death, but the rabbits rebound so quickly, the see-saw gets going again.
Godwin’s Rule exhibits the properties of Natural Acceleration in that small comments mushroom to the chaos of Nazi analogy, both extreme and inappropriate, which ends the debate, i.e. the catastrophic ending. Since the conditions remain the same, however, though the dispute calms down for a while, the debate ramps up to the Nazi analogy level again.
Which is the focus of this WUWT post.
You’ve got to admit Godwin’s Law can sometimes be used in such an over-the-top manner as to allow humour to override the typical Hitler taunts. Can’t help it, this video, now dated by 3 years, which parodies Al Gore, still makes me laugh – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ymxLA5oRYI&feature=colike
One can’t help but wonder how much fist pounding is going on behind closed doors at carbon future trading businesses these days…
Look, we all know where these collectivist freight trains eventually stop — at genocide central. That has been empirically proven for those who want to reduce it to science and statistics. To pretend like we are dealing with anything different this time is to have one’s head in the sand. Propaganda works, freedom and decency are losing, and if we don’t call a spade a spade, our children will be the guards at the camp or the ones interred there — probably too late anyway, so let’s not pretend this is all nicey nicey.
As stated, Godwin’s Law is false. The following is the account of the law used by Anthony:
“Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.”
I follow several blogs on college football. The debates can be heated. Bloggers sometimes describe an opponent’s anatomy in great detail. Never have I encountered a reference to Hitler, Nazism, or anything related. Such references might occur but they are scarce as hen’s teeth. I think there are reasons for that. Such references simply have no descriptive value, metaphoric or not, in debates about college football. I think there are many other topics that are similar to college football.
Godwin’s Law must be revised in some way. As a starter, consider: “As an online discussion about politics or closely related topics grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
Watts is right, try not to give the alarmist militants the guns with which to shoot back at us. Let them invoke Godwin’s law, then they’ll be giving us the guns.
But apologize? I don’t know, I like what Mr. Mangan said above “Stay in their face, never back down, meet them wherever you find them with clenched jaw and closed fist. Mock them, berate them, and spit on their views. ” ..To that I say Amen Bro.
Anthony says – “We’ll now be in a defensive position over Delingpole’s article.”
Only if you choose to be. I’m certainly not. As I said on Friday, I thought JD’s column last Sunday was well written and brilliant. He has nothing to apologize for.
Mann’s reaction was a perfect fit proving the column’s point and it’s Mann who should be getting hit over the head with it.
Well, he doesn’t have to apologize to me. Go, Dellers, go!
Go over the top, then top it again!
(I’m so sorry, Anthony)
Hmm, James Delingpole is a hero of mine as is Anthony Watts as are many who write in this blog. Did I think what James wrote offensive? No I do not. Have I ever been called a Nazi? Yes many times. By who? By Alarmists/warmists of course. See they think that if you do not go along with their word view on AGW that you are by definition: 1. A right winger 2. A Nazi 3. A racist. I quickly point out the roots of radical environmentalism. See the “true believers” in the dogma of global warming are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason people out of positions they have not been reasoned into in the first place. These people are full of hate. Eric Hoffer observed in his classic analysis of mass movements: “Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life.” The mass movements of today are not so much cultural but anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, environmentalism, scientism, and others are millenarian and apocalyptic. The progression from communism to fascism in the creation of the new world was bridged by Nietzsche which led to an association between ecologists and German nationalists, among whom a number subsequently became Nazis. Certain German “volkish” ideas that were central to fascism: about the organic harmony of the earth, the elevation of animal rights and the denigration of humans as enemies of nature are today presented as the acme of environmentalist progressive thinking. When I point out to Alarmists/warmists that their roots lie in Fascism, hell begins to freeze over. Interestingly the environmentalists are today’s Gnostics. Have a read of the British National Party manifesto and you will see hardly any difference from a socialist manifesto. One needs to be a student of history to see the madness of these people.
So I am invoking Godwin’s Law with the above? No I am not, as it is the truth!
I have tried being nice and reasonable to these people, it does do work, they only hate me more. I think we are at war with them. They would in all honesty like to send us all for treatment or failing that death. James D is only giving them what they give him ALL the time. Maybe James has just had a gut-full, I certainly have!
I would have to say that i think Godwin’s law is nonsense. The second world war, especially nazis is one of the only areas of common ground one can invoke. While it is still (almost) true that everyone agrees on Nazism one ought to be able to use it as an analogy in arguments. Godwin’s law is really just a petulant attempt to limit discussion, by people with a desire to equivocate.
As for the matter at hand, I think it was a little boorish to call James out like that on your blog. While Mr Dellingpole was defiant in his response, he was not, in my view hostile. I do not see how scolding him in print was a friendly act, or a necessary one. Nor do i see why you find it necessary to get in the last word here, thus extending the argument.
Dellingpole is a feisty personality, at war with a plethora of individuals and organizations (including the current government over there). He fights. This is not the same as running a single issue blog, read mainly by people who agree with you or at most politely differ. Further, without people like Dellingpole punting this issue to the proles, there would be no popular support for skepticism.
I have used a similar approach in an attempt to give the person using over stated rhetoric a chance to see hoe the shoe fits. unfortunately it usually does not work, I i get held to account for the words i used and the attempt to get the person to see the man in the mirror fails.
Mikey Mann has always been one tree ring away from obscurity….and a world away from ethical reality. For this Penn impostor to cry foul is foul….and pointing his few remaining supporters to Delingpole might cause some to have an long overdue epiphany. As for handing Mann a tool, i see a Josh cartoon of submissive Mann, tying himself with lies and handing domitrix, Truth, the hockey stick whip. Finally, can we now transcend Fascist talk with other forms of social deviance ? ? ?
I wouldn’t want to take sides here because the two of you approach this from different angles.
Frankly though, it is well past the time that we expose the murderous b*****ds for exactly what they are. Mann doesn’t care if ‘carbon’ costs X or Y, taxpayers will keep him warm in Winter.
Mann should perhaps be placed in a room with a dying UK pensioner. One unable to afford otherwise abundant ‘fossil fuel’. He could prattle on about his war with ‘industry funded deniers (and his latest book)’ as they freeze to death. He could, perhaps, provide a taxpayer funded powerpoint presentation about how their imminent death by hypothermia is actually a good thing. That isn’t murder of course. The cause is just.
Back to Godwin’s law – well you don’t need an ‘Auschwitz’ in order to kill millions of ‘excess’ citizens. Just let them freeze. One by one.
Delingpole throws this reality in their faces and so he should.
I agree with Anthony over giving your enemies weapons. As Napoleon once said: