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.”
Good for you Ninderthana, take some elbow pads and a cycle helmet, it might be lively!
Anthony (Mod) is correct. What Monckton should have done is say that Garnaut was aligning with those advocating polices identical to the 3rd Reich. For that is indeed correct. What Monckton did was hyperbole, and that is where he failed. There are those in the debate – on the AGW side, that indeed appear to want to imitate the practices of Germany in the 30s and 40s. But not all do. however a good case can be made of “Birds of a Feather, Flock Together”.
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
Monckton, for the love of everything that is holy, stop embarrasing us!
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’m disappointed that Lord M apologized! After all aren’t these the same people calling us ‘deniers’ as though we are denying the Holocaust ? Aren’t these the same people that have suggested tattooing our foreheads to thereby separate us into a group forever ostracized from ever again interfering with their scam? Aren’t these the same people who suggest it would best to just blow us up on the spot than hear anymore scientific skepticism – “no pressure”.
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.
Lord MOCKton, thanks for gracing us with your presence.
I see you retracted “Fascist” but let “Nazi” and “heil Hitler” stand.
Since Professor Garnaut is acting like a Nazi but clearly isn’t an actual Nazzi and couldn’t be Hitler, using those terms is childish and ad hom.
It would be more effective to point out his specific actions than bandy about lables.
Respectfully, Scott Covert.
Suggestions about tattooing or gassing people are deeply offensive to a great many people that lost family and loved ones during WWII. It is equivalent to hate speech.
Tattooing and gassing were the tactics specific to the Nazi’s. This issues should be front and center of the debate, lest we forget the lessons of history.
Many young people growing up today have only a very limited understanding of the events connected with WWII, the lives destroyed and how close the Nazi’s came to success. Except for the war effort, Hitler would likely have completed the A Bomb ahead of the USA, forcing all countries of the world to surrender unconditionally.
Freedom is often taken for granted without the understanding of how quickly it can be taken away. While Moncton was political incorrect, his message is an important one.
Talk of tattooing and gassing is the thin edge of the wedge. Once the public is conditioned to accept the suggestion, then comes action. Global domination and universal slavery may not be your dream, but it is the dream of leaders past and present. The ultimate achievement.
There is a recent article that is tying much of this together …
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/vote-for-whoever-you-want-bailout.html
All one needs to do is watch an episode of “Yes, Minister” to understand what is happening. Regardless of what party is in power, the bureaucracy serves the interests of the bureaucracy. They are not elected and can control which party is elected simply by sabotage of the current governments policies.
‘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.
Well, the ship (science) has been hijacked and may be close to sinking; commandeered by those who Lord Monckton (LM) has decisively exposed to a great number of foolish AGW followers of that faith. However you view LM’s comments, turning of the cheek will not save the ship.
The learning curve for reeducating the general public may take too long, too slow to the momentous inertia of current greed and hand wringing within the political arena.
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”.
Whether planned or not, but it’s a rather clever tactic to give ample apologies after the fact since then even more want to know what was really so bad. And higher the viewer count the happier the Lord, I’m thinking. :p
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.
To affirm Luboš Motl , Przemysław Pawełczyk and others who have experienced such totalitarianism.
Vaclav Klaus exposes the dangers of ecofacism in Blue Planet in Green Shackles
Having experienced such oppression, President Vaclav Klaus clearly exposes today’s oppressors:
Will we heed the words of the wise? Or but bow to political correctness?
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
Regretfully, I noticed the lead WUWT post starts off with citing Godwin’s so-called ‘Law’.
Godwin’s so-called ‘Law’? What a bunch of rhetorical nonsense. Who makes up this kind of social science fiction and political science subjectivity? Ahhhhh, it is the same humanities departments of universities dominated by post-modern philosophy who also feed us the PNS gobble-di-goop.
The subjectivity inspired by invoking Godwin’s so-called ‘Law’ actually almost fatally sidetracks the real issue. The real issue is drawing actual parallels between the events inspired by the agendas of the IPCC/AGW/Ideological Environmentalist axis in certain countries and the events that occurred in the country of Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
John
Note to Lord Monckton
Chris:
Thankyou for your public retraction. I remember how you defended me and Niklas Morner when we were subjected to similar attack at St Andrews Uni. (see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938) so I was especially dismayed that you had made the same error.
Our politics are poles apart but I know you to be the true gentleman that you are. And I will defend you as you defended me.
Richard
Dear David [Hagen],
well yes, our president Klaus has said and written (not only in the book) very similar things, without specific names and slogans of the Nazi movement, however. 😉 Needless to say, Lord Monckton is close to President Klaus. I have recently contributed to Klaus’ 70th birthday Festschrift (an essay on the climate sensitivity). This info should be added to make it very clear that I don’t intend to be ashamed of this link – quite on the contrary, I am very proud.
I hope that Anthony and others like Lord Monckton’s apology as a “full-fledged and classy”. It’s the kind of apology that doesn’t leave you in any doubts that Lord Monckton has apologized. I like this feature. However, whether it’s a good idea to start to apologize, I am less certain.
My experience e.g. with Lawrence Summers’ apologies to the militant feminists in 2005 speak a pretty clear language. It was a devastating mistake for him to get on this path (about a week after his famous speech on women on science – he remained a man with a spine exactly for 1 week) because it would always be abused as a sign of Summers’ weakness and their thirst for power and ambitions would just continue to escalate and Summers was eventually forced to resign, anyway.
Clearly, what really drives the alarmists up the wall about Lord Monckton are not references to the Nazis that they may be happy about because they may think that it hurts the skeptics at least in the eyes of some people. What drives them up the wall are his coherent explanations of some climate issues that naturally culminate in his conclusions that something is seriously wrong with the whole AGW movement and orthodoxy.
All the best
Luboš
The Lord is not renowned for his use of temperate language. Neither is he regaled as having contact with current research. His slide show is a mishmash of inaccuracies which had ben thoroughly debunked by several informed commentators. He should really apologize for his misleading presentation of ideas, which he inaccurately describes as facts.
Hugh Pepper:
Your post is a classic fail. It is a list of unsubstantiated and untrue ad homs which tells much about you and nothing about Chris Monckton.
Richard
Monckton is right to warn against the surrender of sovereignty to international bodies claiming to work for “the planet”. And he is right to warn against the surrender to argument-by-authority.
And he should probably stay with the science, even tho it can become frustrating when trying to attract a biased media for publicity, and in future leave the vile abuse to the so-called eco-fascists (or “deep ecology” as it’s known). I can’t judge Monckton’s views on Professor Garnaut with out knowing the context of the bigger picture, would many here say the same of Pentti Linkola? who is openly misanthropical, or David Foreman? who was criticized as being misanthropical by Murray Bookchin (via wikipedia).
There is criteria for someone being misanthropical, Monckton believes Hitler and his fascism was misanthropical and he therefore draws similarities between those who are involved in the “deep ecology” and of course the symbolism of Misanthropy from his era, swastikas etc…that he is familiar with.
This is a man who is drawing attention to how it actually is, We are all allowed to be skeptical of what ever issue there is, no matter how much intimidation, bullying or hateful threats of violence or boring slurs (“tattooing deniers”, “gassing skeptics”, “no pressure campaigns” etc…”) you hear from the spin of “deep ecology” proponents in today’s irresponsible media. The question is, does “deep ecology” include the theories of “CAGW” “Man Made Climate Change” or “Man Made Global Warming” the answer is Yes, absolutely Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy
Our good friend Lord Monckton, like many brilliant and likeable British intellectuals who brighten our world with their colourful characters, may go over the proverbial top from time to time. Oopsie. But, as secure and big-hearted types usually deal with things, they respect the views of their friends, including their critiques, and are quick to admit their booboos and to make amends. From his official statement:
“Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as ‘fascist’. I apologise humbly.
This and his Lordship’s brief and classy apology to Mr Watt and all of us here who wagged our fingers, serves as a prime example of why Lord Monckton casts such a big shadow over his opponents. Of course, being the feisty chap he is, his Lordship can’t resist a good and fair shot into the other court:
Will there be similar apologies from those who have called us ‘climate deniers’ or ‘denialists’, or who say we should be tattooed with our opinions, or imprisoned, or barred from Australia, or tried for ‘high crimes against humanity’?”
Good questions and a fair challenge, but I wager that those whom the comments concern will not rise to the occasion for the simple reason that unlike his Lordship, they seem to be a petty, class-less and churlish lot. On that subject, I note that Mr Hugh Pepper has already served us with a peek preview of the kind of grace we may expect from the other side. Pity.
Mr Feht,
I have not forgotten you.
Since apologies and declarations of noble principles seem to be popping up on this board …in predictable forum dynamics, I might add… let me extend my apology for my “pitiful …attempts at irony.” I do try too hard to be amusing sometimes, to play the forum clown. Eliciting a chuckle, a prime motivation in my life’s mission, should be a mitzvah and then, I might have my only chance to earn a few points….(here I go again) … or credits. Not in this case, obviously.
I indeed blush at my naiveté for imagining that the medium of irony, much less a pitiful attempt thereof, would penetrate your dense ideological filtres. So, let me summarize and add to my points in a direct and hopefully more comprehensible manner.
First, the village commissar bit, the one where you foam about insufficient loyalty and backbone amongst your comrades here is, frankly, embarrassing. I cringe to think that your dark grumblings about weaklings and traitors in our midst, along with the wild-eyed conspiracy rants might be the first post a newbie would see. Without agreeing or disagreeing, this is not about the substance of your convictions, but about your delivery.
Secondly, sometimes a friend, such as our Lord Monckton, says or does something that someone might rightly or wrongly disagree with. In an open, moral, healthy and functional group, which I believe our world-wide skeptic community happens to be, courteous disagreements are its life blood. Without an honest, easy and rapid exchange of ideas, we will wind up quickly in the same quagmire as those other goys.
And, thirdly and lastly, until war between Warmers and Skeptics has been declared and you impress us with your martial leadership, numerous legions and impressive materiel, do try to treat this “battle” as a policy conflict to be handled politically in a democratic manner, ethically and with appropriate etiquette. In a policy and public relations “battlefield” environment, one does not accomplish much with crude accusations, jingoistic lectures about the obvious and a barrage of flying spittle.
Good day.