UPDATE: Monckton offers apology, see below
Given the recent elevated rhetoric in Australia, the claims of death threats, and the media suggestions of skeptics getting tattooed and gassed, I was dismayed to see this in news.acom.au:
h/t to WUWT reader AdderW for the link to the above story.
Since I was invited to tour and speak in Australia last year at many of the same venues, I feel I should comment on this.
Alarmists in Australia are doing enough damage to themselves with over the top rhetoric. We don’t need to weaken our position on our interpretations of the data uncertainty and the science problems by committing rhetorical suicide.
Nobody has ever won an argument by invoking Godwins Law.
While Lord Monckton is free to speak his mind however he wishes, it is my opinion that this has no place in the debate, nor do the recent ugly calls from Australian columnists Richard Glover and Jill Singer.
I’m certainly not blameless in the issue of civility in the climate debate, as I’ve had my moments where I’ve rattled off an angry comment missive or a post that was misinterpreted that I have later regretted. There’s plenty of “heat of the moment” examples of that on both sides.
However, putting swastikas in planned public powerpoint presentations, and linking that by name to a person, is in my opinion, way over the top and in very bad form and totally hijacks and negates the important messages elsewhere in the presentation.
=============================================================
UPDATE: Lord Monckton responds in comments
Monckton of Brenchley says:
I have been a very bad Lord. My remarks about Professor Garnaut were unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike. Mea maxima culpa. I have apologized to him unreservedly, and I deserve the criticisms that Anthony and many commentators have posted here. Sorry to you all. I shall try to keep my cool in future. – M of B
He says similar things in this Telegraph article:
Lord Monckton has since apologised for the remarks.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he said: “I have written to Ross Garnaut to withdraw unreservedly and to apologise humbly. What I said about his opinions was unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike.”
Joshua,
Just as a matter of interest, how old are you?
Elaborating on my previous: When does the talking stop, and the bleeding begin? That is where this will ultimately end up.
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.
Anthony is entirely correct. AGW skeptics can engage in respectful arguments with global warming alarmists without resorting to the same scare tactics as they do.
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.
I’ve always felt that Monckton is in the “with friends like that …” category. He’ll never win any hearts and probably represents the archetype of a climate denier in the minds of CAGW believers. He’s very entertaining though.
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…)
Sorry Anthony,
You are of course free to do that, but please remenber what he has gone through and cut him some slack.
Lord Monckton is out there fighting the good fight, I will not try to second-guess his tactics.
Swastikas never look good in the background of one’s image. It could be used against you. ;O)
Adam Gallon says:
“… but why use a Swastika, rather than a Fascisti to illustrate this?”
Good question. Either way, National Socialism is National Socialism.
By the way, ever look at the obverse of a U.S. Mercury Dime? (1916-1945) (Fasces)
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.
Joshua says:
June 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm
That said, Kudos to Anthony for putting up the post. I hope he’s looking closely at what kinds of people read his website.
=====================================================================
I’ll take these people over the Malthusian misanthropists with a totalitarian bent, fixated on killing to the point of creating snuff films, advising tattooing/branding and suggesting suicide to people with opposing points of views, any day.
How about you Josh? Are you particular about the company you keep or associate with? Or the people you identify with?
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.
Baa Humbug says:
June 22, 2011 at 1:10 pm (Edit)
Me personally? I would not have used the Nazi reference, however I’m going to give Monckton some credit for political smarts and good strategy and here is why.
Recently in particular, alarmists have made some appalling statements in attacking sceptics (WUWT has listed some, such as “gas yourselves” and “tattoo sceptics”) at the height of the Carbon Tax debate here in Australia. NONE OF THE MSM HAVE CALLED OUT THESE ALARMISTS FOR IT.
Now that Monckton has used the same tactic, watch these alarmists hit him with everything bar the kitchen sink, but when they do, they themselves will no longer be able to use these tactics without being seen for what they are, hypocritical a-holes.
In fact, what Monckton has done is FORCE the debate to a higher level by taking all the flack himself and I for one thank him for it.
“That’s not a knife…this is a knife”
Listen to the Australian. He knows his country and his countrymen.
Monckton is a skilled orator. He knows how to pitch his stuff to the audience.
I’d have to see video of the event before I’d pass judgment.
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.
This time you are wrong, Mr. Watts.
Eco-fascists are eco-fascists, that’s their proper name, and they should be called as such as often as possible.
If anything, Lord Monckton has been too restrained.
We’ve been too polite for too long with liars and thieves who already control the globe and are enslaving us more and more every day. Glad to see that many of the regular visitors of your site did not follow you in this attempt to make piece with monsters.
Understandably, people of Ira Glickstein’s ilk would enthusiastically support you in this, as they would enthusiastically exploit any weakness in their opponents — but we all know by now, who they really are, and what they really want here.
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.
The problem I see with alot of ppl including sadly the OP is that they invoke Godwin’s Law wrongly and in an attempt to belittle rational and factual based arguments. Most of all when it comes to the hypocrisy and similarity of one groups actions next to hilter’s.
To put it simply ppl evoke godwin because when they are losing a debated based on facts much like they claim racism, denier, heretic or any of a host or other terms they need to shift the topic and attack the speaker instead of the argument.
Another problem is that most ppl know very little about hitler pre-1939 or 1936. They have no idea what hitler’s campaign platforms were, his speeches were about, how he got into power, along with a host of other things. Hitler was still hitler before he started throwing jews in ovens… The vast majority of times(a good 95%) of when ppl evoke godwin is when ppl try to argument historic in the pre-1936 hitler and dealing with how hitler managed to get power, what he really stood for, among other things… which appear to be the case here.
Once again to put simply hitlers run up to power wasn’t just “Hey i’m hitler elect me”, *elected* “ok lets get those jews in those ovens”. Much of hitler’s tactics and ideology is the same is what the eco-terrorists and global warming cultists use today. This is mostly due to the fact they share similar ideology in collectivism. “Science” was a huge helper in hilters move to throw jews in ovens putting up many studies to support the “jews must be placed in ovens” argument. Eugenics which eco-terrorists and global cooling/warming/etc cultist still believe in and openly endorsed even in the late 70s is a cornerstone of both hitlers and eco-terror/global cooling/warming/etc ideology. To overlook reality because its “inconvenient” and my get you called “over the top” or “rhetorical suicide” is a bit much. One of the man reasons that hitler along with many would be dictators are successful is by changing reality where sane factual arguments suddenly because “over the top” or “rhetorical suicide”. They pray on the weak minded that refuse to call a spade and spade… it is how they gain power and why they are able to become dictators in the first place.
To say that the global warming movement is NOT based in eugenics and many of its sub-ideologies(to include nazism) is far more “over the top” and “rhetorical suicide” then to say its similar to nazism.
James Sexton says @ur momisugly 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…
In reply to James Sexton. This is not an issue of scoialists v libertarians. Many supporters of the ALP are turning against climate alarmism. The issue is about science, ethics and public policy. Many thousands of coal miners and steel workers are in danger of losing their livleihoods due to the disasterous errors of climate alarmism and the political opportunism of the ALP. Monckton will go over like a lead ballon in our communities. In Australia this is a political fight where the so-called socialist supporters of the ALP who are turning against climate alarmism and carbon tax policy are absolutely critical to the defeat of the Gillard government. If you want to stay in your comfortable political ghettos and throw insults dont insult the intelligence many fine hard working Australians that have voted and supported the ALP in the past but are prepared for the first time in their lives to vote against them in defense of their communities and livlehoods. Many of us are socialists. As i said this is about good science and good public policy not your political bias.
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.
R. Gates says:
Really? Really?? C’mon.
Yes
cant you see that, or is ignore on?
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.
Connolly,
No, this has become an entirely political issue.
Science, good or bad, has nothing to do with what politicians are doing to us under “green” cover.
Why should we be polite with people who shamelessly lie into our faces, and rob us under a gunpoint?
Ooops. I might have slipped a bit of my own vitriol in there with that radical nutbar comment.
JE