UPDATE: As is typical with alarmism, some people with a dislike for me and WUWT are spreading rumors on other blogs that these are my words, not of a commenter. And that I’m calling people on those blogs “cockroaches”. Not true. Of course they don’t take time to read the comments, they only run off and spread what they perceive at first, so I’m elevating yet another comment. In my response in comments here, I made it clear what this comment from Alexander Feht is about:
Anthony reply: It is an apt metaphor, one that caught attention of a lot of people prior to it being elevated, and you are reading way too much into it. He sees the USSR politics and Socialism as that. Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes. Of course it doesn’t matter what I answer, some people will happily run off and distort it. In fact they already are.
===========================================================
This may or may not become a new weekly feature, but I thought this comment was worth elevating to post status:
Alexander Feht says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I completely understand, why Christopher Monckton felt a need to make an example of a typical reprehensible representative of modern Academia. People like Christopher Monckton make me hope again that not everything is lost yet under the Moon.
And yet… I spent first half of my life battling liars and cockroaches in the former USSR. I would win against any individual liar or cockroach, no sweat. But year after year after year, I was getting more and more convinced that I didn’t want to die in this battle, overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of my enemies.
So. I live in a quiet valley now, in Colorado Rockies. Grass is green, air is fresh, sky is huge. But what is this constant swish and rustle coming from the East Coast and from the Left Coast? I know this sound well! There is no escape from the battle: cockroaches are coming.
He adds in comments:
I am completely embarrassed by all this attention.
My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Watts and all the commentators.
The only thing I would like to add:
I’ve noticed that many comments on WUWT (and in other places) are based on the unshaken assumption that the existing framework of democracy, including the established peer-review and other mechanisms in Academia, would somehow, even if only in a long run, fix our worst problems, and extricate the good name of science from the rotten mire it has found itself in today.
The question is obvious:
How the same framework and the same mechanisms that resulted in today’s lamentable situation, are going to have a healing effect?
In other words, are you sure that we have at hand something to populate the house with, after we would have “cleaned the house”? Where are Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts in our cherished established institutions? And, most importantly, what fundamental (and, preferably, bloodless) changes in our society are necessary to bring Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts up, and to bring Bushes, Obamas, Blairs and Prince-Charleses down into oblivion? That is the question.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Adrian
If you are still around.
Two things drew me and still draws me here: a comparison of the level of ad hom attacks on each side (Amazon Books is a pretty neutral ground for comparison) and a comparison of the level of checkable, reliable and pertinent science. And what I miss from you is comments about the science itself, which is the real issue. Scientific understanding is what Monckton has in spades. But you have to do your homework. Click on my name and scroll down to “Heart of the controversy”. He wrote such a long piece – to show he does understand, correctly, all the many details for which he has often been condemned -it’s not just Abraham wrongly accusing him. You have to compare Monckton’s level of rudeness with the composite of rudeness he has received. To say nothing of the abuse of Science which Abraham represents.
I wonder how long it it will take Dan Olner to figure it out?
I think that, in the context of mutual accusations of incivility, one point should be painfully clear:
In most countries of the world, despite the will of the majority of population, by fraud and abuse of powers, proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are holding the government’s gun pointed at our heads and make as pay for their unsubstantiated cause.
Being the initiators of real violence, they lack any and all authority to claim innocence in court, saying nothing of “civility” in public forums.
For those who need short and blunt explanations, I repeat:
If you hold a gun and make me give you money (for whatever reason) by threatening to imprison me or to kill me if I resist, THIS IS NOT A DEBATE, THIS IS ROBBERY.
nad: “I wonder how long it it will take Dan Olner to figure it out?”
Enlighten me.
(Housekeeping: This thread should be about Alexander Feht’s comment. Can you please, moderators, transfer all the Monckton comments to a Monckton thread? Thanks.
Nice try, though – to try to obscure a deep issue like Alexander’s comment, on which people should be responding for days or weeks – with a “did he, didn’t he” Monckton point designed to terminate the thread in a few hours).
I didn’t come here to debate cockroaches, but to respond to Alexander’s comment:
Dear Alexander,
Kudos, first, to Anthony for picking your idea out.
I have noticed – and agreed with – your comments several times before. This time, you are exceptional, even by your own standards. And your second comment is even better than your first.
I share your insight that democracy – as practiced today – doesn’t work. It turns good people against each other – “liberals” versus “conservatives”, for example. And it has corrupted science, too.
I see that many, even at WUWT, seem convinced that the future is bad. I disagree; if only on the ground that pessimists are always right.
I think we need to focus on the basics. What is right, and what is wrong? Morality – what is it? What is freedom? What is justice? What is government for? What is honesty? What is equality? What is science?
The WUWT readership have more brain cells focused on today’s problems than have ever been assembled before. So, I expect the new Socrates, the new Beethovens, the new Einsteins, Edisons and Whittles, to follow. And the cockroaches will – eventually – snip themselves. Or should that be [snip] themselves?
Alexander, Anthony, well done, and thank you.
Neil says:
July 16, 2010 at 11:22 am
“What is right, and what is wrong? Morality – what is it? What is freedom? What is justice? What is government for? What is honesty? What is equality? What is science?”
________________________________________________
Difficult questions, all. Yes, we must find answers to these questions, and re-arrange our society according to our new, painfully acquired and informed understanding (some of us could even humbly propose some solutions, though I am sure they wouldn’t be easy to understand and implement).
However, the burning problem is that, while we are mulling over these undoubtedly important philosophical questions, fraudsters and thieves are having their heyday.
How you imagine this process, practically?
Suppose I will go to Mr. Putin and tell him: “People are different, Vlad! The same laws and requirements are inapplicable to all individual people and minority groups. They should have a possibility to opt out from any programs and functions they don’t want to participate in, and they should not be required to pay for such programs and functions. Really free society should be a society without mandatory taxation, without coercion, working on the basis of voluntary donations for specific causes, with opt-out opportunities for all…”
Putin:
– Huh? Hey, who let this nutcase in here? Deal with him, now!
[snip]
Alexander Fehr,
With all due respect, you are a few light years over the top. What “real violence” are you talking about? Who has been beaten up, tortured or mutilated?
“In most countries of the world, despite the will of the majority of population, by fraud and abuse of powers, proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are holding the government’s gun pointed at our heads and make as pay for their unsubstantiated cause.
Being the initiators of real violence, they lack any and all authority to claim innocence in court, saying nothing of “civility” in public forums.”
What “robbery” are you talking about? If you think the government is wrong, then get yourself or someone else elected to change it. That is the democratic way, not to adopt heated and overwrought speech like “cockroaches”, “real violence” and “ROBBERY”.
You should be know from the history of your former country: overwrought and violent speech identifiying objects of hatred (like “kulaks” or “class enemies”) has a way of taking on a life of its own, and leading to dreadful consequences.
In a reply to Dan Olner, Anthony writes:
“Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes.”
Right on the money, Anthony. As for myself, I am not in disagreement with the Al Gores and the Michael Manns of the world; rather, I am in fear that my life will be taken from me by them. Now, does that adequately explain the use of “cockroach?”
Alexander Feht: “In most countries of the world, despite the will of the majority of population, by fraud and abuse of powers, proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are holding the government’s gun pointed at our heads and make as pay for their unsubstantiated cause.”
I don’t think this metaphor is correct in the case of democratic societies, where decision-making is representative and takes place according to lawful procedures.
“Yes, we must find answers to these questions, and re-arrange our society according to our new, painfully acquired and informed understanding…”
And this is the issue. Who are the “we” who are going to do the re-arranging? There are few ways to distribute political power: place it in the hands of the one, the few or the many. In a democratic society, the “we” is the many.
In practice, power in any system tends to move in favour if one set of interests for a time, then swings back to another set of interests. Sometimes the various interests can compromise.
If there’s a better way of handling polticial power than the imperfect democracies we have at present, we should explore them. But to date I haven’t seen anything persuasive.
From the comments here there are several people who feel that the world should be a shiny happy place where we all “just get along”. Unfortunately the world, and by extension people, do not work that way.
IMHO The term cockroach in this context does not refer so much to any individual but rather to a group of people and a group think that is becoming less and less merely annoying and more and more oppressive. It is an excellent metaphor to describe their behavior. To ignore this elephant in the room, simply because the elephant was referred to as a cockroach, is to do so at your peril.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, a rose by any other name would still stink out loud.
Frequently encountered sentiment among the young and not so young:
“If you think the government is wrong, then get yourself or someone else elected to change it. That is the democratic way…”
Aha. If only pigs would fly.
Excellent comment.
As someone said earlier, this site pulls in many hits and this comment is worthy of attention. If we can get this message into the newspapers and onto the radio we might be onto something. Squish ’em!
I have consulted the birds around my birdfeeder and they have twittered:
Anthony you have had a brilliant idea! A comment of the week!!! Brilliant!?!?:
For myself my new goal is to be the comment of the week. Given the commenters here it will be a hard contest to win. Many other commenters are probably thinking the same as I am. What it will motivate me to do is more carefully research my comments and their literary qualities. I suspect you will see even better comments then you already have [the best in the blogsphere].
He did so.
First, a criticism can be framed as a question, E.g., after a rebuttal, a sentence or paragraph might conclude, “Would you not now concede that you were wrong to say yada yada?” There’s no substantive distinction between a rejoinder and one packaged in a question, merely a formal one. The format is undoubtedly the result of Monckton’s intention to convey to Abraham that these are the sort of questions (finely grained, in order to grind fine) that a litigator would pose to him on the witness stand.
Second, he has just posted an 11-page Foreword that condenses his grievances and avoids the “question-posing” format, so “instead” doesn’t apply now.
Nonsense. A few of them could be characterized that way. (And usually after providing grounds for suspecting that a wife-beating had occurred.)
Nonsense. That was in a separate, earlier document, and he has now apologized for it.
heh – no, morality is simple.
morality is the science of choice.
where there is no choice, it’s not a matter of morality.
choices must be made on the basis of some standard of value.
the standard of value for a human being is his own life as a human being.
not as a milk cow
not as a slave
not as a dog
Man is not to be sacrificed on any altar – society’s or deity’s.
Self sacrifice is not a virtue; it is suicide.
Reason is man’s basic tool of survival. Negation of reason is not debate; it is suicide.
Reason can not be coerced – it is a choice.
It is the moral choice of a human being.
Good is that which is consistent with human nature – you better damn well define it correctly.
Evil is that which contradicts it.
Black & white and simple enough for a 4 year old – and I know some.
If you have found it a chore, blame your parents if you like, but to reach any age beyond adolescence without having defined your own nature and identified the standard of values – THAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.
The problem is an attempt to deny what is.
You can’t – but you can die trying.
Therefore, discover morality, finally, after such a long period of default.
And it’s not enough to know it- you have to know you know it and it has to be spoken in the street as a commonplace: I own me. You own you. We respect that.
When that common knowledge has ceased to be spoken a renaissance degenerates into – what you see – the reward of the morality you have been practicing – a morality of self sacrifice and of sacrificial others. It’s what you should have expected had your parents raised you intelligently.
The western world has for some time been practicing a morality of death.
You have sacrificed profit to subsidy, justice to equality, principle to legal writ, authority replaced merit and ultimately PC – reason was sacrificed to sentiment.
The consequences were part of the bargain. The free lunch was you.
Roger Knights said:
“toby said:
Abraham called him out on certain points. The correct response was for Lord Monckton to approach each citation of Abraham and check that his reading of their work was the correct. ”
It was clear from Abraham’s earlier rubuttal that some of the scientists had never heard of Lord Monckton, none of the others had any contact with him. It took Abrahams 8 months to get a response from each scientist involved. So Monckton did all that in a few weeks? In fact, it is clear that he STILL has not contacted the scientists who wrote the papers he used, and is relying on bluff and bluster to stampede Abraham and the University into conceding to his ludricrous demands.
His loutish comments on the University of St. Thomas, Father Dease and the local Bishop have destroyed his own case. Belated apologies are of little use. People may see a noble aristocrat in Lord Monckton; I see only an elitest bully, who expects lesser mortals (“commoners”) to defer to him. It was a bad day for climate skeptics when they made him one of their leaders. As a person who accepts AGW, I always thought Monkcton’s superficial understanding of science could not for ever be disguised by his brilliant rhetoric.
“Alexander Feht says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Frequently encountered sentiment among the young and not so young:
“If you think the government is wrong, then get yourself or someone else elected to change it. That is the democratic way…”
Aha. If only pigs would fly.”
Well, Alexander, if you cannot carry a democratic election, then your fulminations about “real violence”, “ROBBERY” and “cockroaches” are just empty bluster to egg on a minority. If you reject democratic elections, perhaps you should spell out just exactly what your political agenda is?
toby,
If it weren’t for ad hominem personal attacks, you wouldn’t have anything to say. Would you?
Anthony says: “Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes. ”
Fair enough. That being so, would you agree that Monckton asking for Abraham’s presentation being taken down is (how do I use the metaphor here?) ‘cockroaches’? Or is there some reason why that demand still comes under the heading of “freedom, tolerance and open discourse?”
REPLY: If you’ll read my initial introduction on Monckton, you’ll see I prefaced it with “I don’t have a dog in this fight”. I stand by that. I’m giving the man a forum, since Abraham has had quite a large forum on other websites. Note I’ve not said anything about his presentation either. And when are you going try to pin down some of those other people I alluded to in my first response, or have you not found it in entirety yet? -Anthony
Dear Smokey,
I reject your accusation. I have made no personally abusive attacks on anybody (e.g. “overcooked prawn”, “creep”).
“Ad hominem”, of course, is a stock rejoinder when you have no response to a legitimate argument.
toby,
Sorry, wrong. Ad hominem means making the issue the man rather than the science. Abraham started it, and you are continuing it [“elitist bully,” “superficial understanding of science ,” “bluff and bluster,” etc.]. If it weren’t for ad hominem personal attacks, you wouldn’t have anything to say. Would you?
Compare your own characterizations of Monckton with your giving a free pass to Abraham [Abraham’s “rebuttal” vs Monckton’s “loutish comments”].
And if you actually believe that Lord Monckton has only a ‘superficial understanding of science,’ you belong in the fool’s cage with HRH Prince Charles.
Perhaps some lyrics might be appropriate here:
Limits of the infinite
Have never been defined
A spirit lies in atrophy
In a state to late to unwind
Trophies on the back shelves
Procreating all our race
Ideals of our fantasies
On which all things are based
Collecting every prospect
Running through your tests
With manikin expressions
They end up like the rest
In glass booths they’re wired
With needles in their flesh
They’re pickled for posterity
And eternally refreshed
So link yourself to others
Talk yourself to sleep
It’s all so superficial
No use for you to weep
It strikes me that most regulars on here don’t even half-grasp Peak Oil, let alone climate change.
“So link yourself to others
Talk yourself to sleep”
That’s up to you if it’s what you want to do. My view is to mitigate & adapt wherever possible, and triage is somewhere that must be a last resort, but believe you me, Monckton is the one who is talking you to sleep. History will be his judge – it always is. It will judge Anthony too. For good or for bad. We will, sadly, the way things are going, have to see.
I will leave you with a question:
Were we worth saving, as a species?
Cheers – John
Anthony,
Prominently featuring a comment as headpost is of course seen as some kind of endorsement on your part. This commenter compares those he disagrees with with cockroaches, a term with a history connected to attempted ethnic cleansing in Africa. Is it wrong to call somebody a denier and ok to call someone a cockroach? The defense that no connection with ethnic cleansing was meant is identical to the defense that no connection with the holocaust was meant. Why is it ok in once case and not the other?
Prominently featuring Monkton’s letter on your high traffic blog, in which he asks support for his intimidation tactics is of course seen as some kind of endorsement of Monckton’s efforts.
His calls amount to censorship of opposing viewpoints, something which you clearly dislike. Is it suddenly ok when it goes into the other direction?
REPLY: Asked and answered above. Also have a look at Abraham’s written response letter, should Monckton be denied the same right to rebuttal? Abraham’s point of view got thousands of views at many websites prior to Monckton’s rebuttal. For the record I disagree with both men on several points. But providing a forum is my choice. Sorry if you don’t like it. Note that for fairness, I also provided link to Abraham’s rebuttal. – Anthony
Smokey: “Ad hominem means making the issue the man rather than the science.”
Which was exactly Monckton’s initial outburst against Abraham, which Monckton subsequently, and wisely, retracted, but then went on to compound the offence.
“Abraham started it, and you are continuing it [“elitist bully,”…”bluff and bluster,” etc.].”
Wrong, Smokey. Those are called “judgements” about Monckton, and they accurately describe his behaviour. He is attempting to bully his opponent into submision. That is the antithesis of free speech.
My guess is that much of Monckton’s ire can be traced to the fact that Abraham is not a big name, and Monckton is incensed that a lowly assistant professor would have the gall to challenge him.
Unfortunately for Monckton, his call for support has met with a muted response from his supporters. He has made a bad move, and now needs to reconsider his options.