My response to Delingpole over invoking Godwin's Law

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.

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.

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

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.

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…

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.”

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.

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 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.

Anthony
Was it a communications problem?
“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.”
—————————————-
“To Delingpole, take a cue from Dave Roberts at Grist: fix it and apologize.”
You didn’t say what to fix nor to whom he should apologize.
Your next words:
“To Mann, Romm, and others”, …………..
It may have been how the lines were laid together that caused confusion.
I very well could have missed the rest of that sentence and started my response, immediately.
Game over, Buddy.
In a letter from a friend being told that somehow apologizing “To Mann, Romm, and others” would “fix it“. No way. I’m not apologizing.
Let’s hope I’m right.
cn

pointing out where there’s there are more than enough instances of blame to go around

Fixed!
/pedant

Punch each other in the nose then buy each other a beer. Then move on. I don’t think this topic deserves another space in either of yours blogs.
REPLY: Agreed, I don’t plan any other essays on it – Anthony

It matters little what we say. Hansen, Mann and schellnhuber are paid by the state to give the state excuses for taxation and control, not to advance science. Hansen for instance has done his best to destroy knowledge about the temperature history, not advance it.
The Hansens, Manns and Schellnhubers will continue to get paid by the state for this; the state-owned media will continue to spout their drivel, reality alone will be the judge; over the pseudoscience as well as over the Keynesian state.
At the moment it looks like the Keynesian state will fall BEFORE the pseudoscience.

You can’t control the climate debates. Get over it (sound familiar?)

Some want to beat them with data while others want to beat them with a stick..
I say nothing but the best for our climate con men and women..
They surly deserve both..
Lets not forget that reality always was the ace in the hole in this political battle..
Betting on the weather / climate to get the public to fund your political movement through taxes.
Breaks about every democratic funding election law there is. Our tax dollars used to deceive and bribe their way into power..
A very sad state of affairs..

Anthony or James? Sorry, but I choose both. As someone who’s been writing for a living for the better part of three decades in all manner of fora, from newspapers to deliberately inflammatory political blogs to blancmange briefing papers to scholarly academic journals, I’m much less exercised by this non-issue than most other folks seem to be. Anthony and James are fighting the same war, but with different weapons and, hence, tactics. This does not necessarily render either approach less valid or less useful any more than swooping Walpolisms make Christopher Monckton’s eye-wateringly trenchant essays any less beneficial a contribution to our common cause. Steve McIntyre’s work is made no less readable or necessary by its (to we non-mathematicians) impenetrably dense statistical analyses; as with Monckton, this is his voice, and thus he thunders.
James is a columnist, a professional scribbler plying his flourishes in the ancient bastion of the English language. No thinking person perusing his original piece would reasonably have assumed that he was advocating mass judicial execution for those with whom he disagrees. He used the term “Nuremburg” because it is a recognizable metaphor in our common tongue. He might just as well, and perhaps more accurately, have called for a climatic “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”, save that the resultant scratching of low foreheads would have showered the darker corners of the internet with dandruff. That the warmist mafia (oops, there’s another metaphor! I presume we can all agree that I’m not actually accusing Mann et al. of being lupara-toting mobsters from the Sicilian hinterland?) might selectively cite and deliberately distort the content of his pieces in the same manner that they selectively cite and distort observational evidence should come as a surprise to none. They will do so no matter how milquetoast our declamations. He would be a fool to allow such fears to crimp his style. One does not eschew a well-crafted weapon out of fear that it might be used against you.
I say, Fight on, the pair of you, but choose your targets with care. Intramural scuffles are a waste of energy, and I beg you, as two of our finest marksmen, to reserve your straightest shafts for the enemy. The game is yet afoot. Our foes may be shaken but they are still feisty, the more so as they now can hear the gusts of incontrovertible observational evidence rattling the bare branches of their models and their grants. For those of us who understand the link between cheap energy and civilization, there’s a world to win.
Gaia willing, after the scoundrels have been routed and the battle won, we’ll all meet in the pub for a beer – room-temperature and flat, or ice-cold and hypercarbonated, as per one’s particular cultural predilection. In refreshment as in argument, difference is not venom but variety.

Delingpole uses hyperbole to attract attention to his arguments in the same way as Jeremy Clarkson uses it to make his points on ‘Top Gear’, However, Clarkson is only trying to entertain and succeeds in doing so, Delingpole is trying to make serious points and in his case hyperbole weakens his position. Of course that’s only my opinion and we all have different ones so surely there’s no need for this argument to continue. So kiss and make up, chaps, eh?

Get back to me the next time you get into an argument on this subject at some other venue where we all get painted with the issue.

So what? Those other venues, the ones that would make this an issue, are not really interested in the truth anyway. They are merely using issues such as this as an excuse to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore what is being said. These are people that cannot be convinced. They do not matter. I agree with the above: those that invoke Godwin’s Law are merely trying to shut down a discussion that is likely making them look fairly stupid in the first place. They are losing and need a way out.
Mark

As I’ve written elsewhere, Godwin’s law should apply to inappropriate comparisons involving Nazis or Hitler. It is not inappropriate, I submit, to compare totalitarian abusers (who, inter alia, would tattoo calumnious epithets across our foreheads for our daring to oppose their silly conjecture) with other historical examples of totalitarian abusers.
My Annotation:

“As an online discussion of totalitarianism or authoritarianism or the Second World War grows longer, the probability of an inappropriate but smug reference to Godwin’s Law approaches 1.”

“Online” back then had no meaning, there could have been no more than a few bashing away at the Arpernet like a glorified CB radio, but was this not confined to geeky University types hiding from the rugby club, and the military?

The web was not around, but “online” certainly existed in the form of bulletin boards, accessible at first through dial-up modems (the first was 1978, according to Wikipedia). Whether or not a BBS was where the so-called law first arose, however, I can’t say.
Mark

I wasn’t suggesting James apologize to Dr. Mann, nooo, I was suggesting that James apologize to climate skeptics.
Well that`s how i read it too.
But it`s not easy confronting those who make a profession of faking outrage. It`s a phenomenon i`ve encountered more and more over last ten years or so.
It seems to be the first strike /default position for most interest groups and sub-cultures with a (percieved) grievance.
Profess enough outrage and it`s possible to shut debate down,it works.
Possibly there are subtle cultural differences (with that rather large puddle between us) that grate on our sensibilities.I for instance find Americans incredibly polite and well mannered ,the ONLY time i`ve EVER been called sir was in a store in the US.
Here in Blighty we appreciate a good insult,a witty verbal attack or frequently something more visceral.
If i wrote here the torrent of abuse that passes as a `greeting` from my closest friends i`d be promptly moderated off the site:)
It`s all good knockabout stuff. I absolutely understand your feelings toward Dellers blog post,but i can`t honestly disagree with him either.
As for Mr Mann,i read the twats tweets, maybe the next time he fluffs up his faux outrage and waves it at the general public we should advise him that if he can`t grow a pair,perhaps he could borrow one..maybe two 😉

I wasn’t suggesting James apologize to Dr. Mann, nooo, I was suggesting that James apologize to climate skeptics.
Well that`s how i read it too.
But it`s not easy confronting those who make a profession of faking outrage. It`s a phenomenon i`ve encountered more and more over last ten years or so.
It seems to be the first strike /default position for most interest groups and sub-cultures with a (percieved) grievance.
Profess enough outrage and it`s possible to shut debate down,it works.
Possibly there are subtle cultural differences (with that rather large puddle between us) that grate on our sensibilities.I for instance find Americans incredibly polite and well mannered ,the ONLY time i`ve EVER been called sir was in a store in the US.
Here in Blighty we appreciate a good insult,a witty verbal attack or frequently something more visceral.
If i wrote here the torrent of abuse that passes as a `greeting` from my closest friends i`d be promptly moderated off the site:)
It`s all good knockabout stuff. I absolutely understand your feelings toward Dellers blog post,but i can`t honestly disagree with him either.
As for Mr Mann,i read the twits tweets, maybe the next time he fluffs up his faux outrage and waves it at the general public we should advise him that if he can`t grow a pair,perhaps he could borrow one..maybe two 😉

The problem with Godwins law, is that is has become to climate science debate, what racism became to the immigration debate. While the left have managed to dismiss any criticism of open ended immigration as racist, so Godwin has effectively allowed for automatic dismissal of anyone who makes any comparison of anything with Hitler or Nazism.
It may be,that in life, some actions or ideologies are comparable to Hitler. Making that observation should not rule out the argument as being nonsense. I’m not saying this is the case with climate science, but there have been some instances that have raised eyebrows. The call of Nuremberg style trials for “climate deniers” was a case in point, as well as possible uses of propaganda.
If something warrants a comparison, and if it is backed up with substance, then nobody should be cowed into not doing so.

_Jim says:
April 14, 2013 at 2:07 pm
However, CompuServe (and a few others) WERE around back then, with a wide-ranging audience active in debate and and all
============================================================================
I remember being on Prodigy about 1990-91 on my first “personal computer” (some POS Radio Shack unit that cost more than a used car today)
I want all that time back that I wasted waiting for pages to load !!!

I believe the interesting thing about Godwin’s Law is this : it fixes fascist analogy of the situation as axiomatic with an appreciation of the truth. Rephrasing slightly then, Authoritarianism is inherent in government and bureaucracy.
Just a few hours ago I was Searching on the matter U.S. Government Narrative and found it productive. ( The UK and BBC are masters of the art ) And the linkage bit Denis Rancourt hard, being persecuted for both ‘climate’ and ‘Holocaust’ alleged denialism ( actually alleged Revisionism ).
Here’s one quick note about the political background of this particular propaganda staple.
http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/blog/2013/03/24/denier

Dodgy Geezer says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm
“Furthermore, the evil which gripped Germany in the 1930s started, as these things often do, at a low level and worked its way up.”
Indeed. A regularly overlooked fact is their economic ineptitude which led to price controls, black markets, and with black markets comes theft of the goods the black market needs from the planned economy and with that, retaliation by the state using snitches and capital punishment…

Armagh Observatory says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm
‘“Online” back then [1990] had no meaning, there could have been no more than a few bashing away at the Arpernet like a glorified CB radio, but was this not confined to geeky University types hiding from the rugby club, and the military?’
Right. In those days old students of mine would beg me for accounts to a growing university net in the US. I was issued a number of accounts for each class. These accounts were not available to the general public.

Robert in Calgary says:
April 14, 2013 at 11:47 am
Anthony says – “We’ll now be in a defensive position over Delingpole’s article.”
============
IMHO, the MSM reports with a slant that puts the opposition in a defensive position, then denies them a retort.

AOL was started in 1985, btw.
Mark

Here’s a research paper on Authoritarianism http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

It is, obviously, a lack of communication.
Mixed signals/hurried typing/bad wording.
Entertaining to be sure, glad it wasn’t me 🙂

I found my way into this realm when I bought and read Dr Bob Carter’s book “Climate: the Counter Consensis”. I found his chapters on the science to be erudite and convincing. They sounded like the material I was exposed to as a geology undergraduate ie. honest science. Later chapters put me off and I didn’t pick up the book and finish it for nearly a year. This was because he had very harsh and (I thought) over the top things to say about conservationists. I knew these were well deserved in reference to charlatans like Gore ( ie the funding and salary crowd) but his rant included ALL conservationsts. It read like bad ‘Mannerisms'(are there any good ones?)
Then I read Christopher Booker’s “The Real Global Warming Disaster” with a similar experience.
THEN I acquired James Delingpole’s “Killing The Earth To Save IT” It was hard to get on with appreciating all the very good points he was making because of the dense cloud of invective. I thought it is going to be hard for me to speak out in the face of the hatred that this kind of activity will inevitably generate.
So I agree with Anthony. It is not necessary to made odious comparisons and generalizations. Take individuals to task for their errors and sins with vigour but stay on fact. It may not be easy and it may be less colourful. I hard to censor myself twice just writing this. I guess I really am a pedantic old fart.
By the way. Those books led this old dinosaur to WUWT which I visit twice a day. Wouldn’t miss it.

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. Wikipedia …
[…]
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.

I must respectfully disagree with you Anthony.
The way to ensure another round of Nazi atrocities and holocaust eventually is to forget the last one, and to not identify it when it is in stages of infancy. Godwin’s Law is a politically correct form of a free pass or immunity from criticism for those proto-Nazis and neo-Communists that are infecting Science and all of society itself. It is a malignant tumor of cancerous cells. I soon expect a similar Wikipedia Law that will also truncate comparisons to Communists and medical diseases as well.
I wouldn’t worry about handing them another tool because Political Correctness is one of the main tools the enemy already uses, and invoking Godwin’s Law to stifle accurate comparisons to their forerunners is itself “handing them a weapon” to beat us up with. Heads they win, tails we lose. That is the nature of the “game” the enemy has us playing. You are only looking at one side of that coin. We are not in a battle of scientific opinion, we never were. It is about slavery, feudalism and servitude, and Political Correctness is the blue pill in this Matrix.
P.S. naturally this is your site and you can restrict it however you want, and seeing how Nazi related words already trigger the content filter it looks as if you already are restricting the conversation somewhat. That’s fine I guess. But I still respectfully disagree, and I do understand because you are a much nicer person than I am. However, I am prepared to happily accept being painted not-so-nice by freedom’s enemies. The price of liberty truly is eternal vigilance.

I’ve occasionally got into this argument over Delingpole (and Monckton) in the past. My answer has always been that I feel no requirement to defend Delingpole as a member of my ‘team’. Sceptics are not a tribe or a coherent organisation – they’re a collection of individuals, few of who have anything to do with any of the others. They don’t speak for me, and I can’t speak for them. And I’m always polite, and ought to be judged on my *own* behaviour.
Having said that, I’d also say there’s room in the debate for several different approaches. Delingpole is essentially an entertainer, who makes a living by presenting in a humorous style that deliberately breaks taboos and ‘political correctness’. There are many people who are attracted and impressed by sophisticated debate, but there are even more people who admire someone who speaks directly, expresses their feelings, and says all those things that “you’re not allowed to say”. It attracts support, raises passions and enthusiasm. (It’s usually funny, too.) The British have a tendency to follow the rules, so when the authorities say “you’ll put up with all these windfarms because it’s Green, and only an evil person would disagree with Green” they will go along with it, with no more than a little dark muttering under their breath. People like Delingpole say to them they can argue back – say such things out loud. It’s liberating – if a little scary.
That doesn’t mean we should *all* do it. And it would help if they knocked it off with the nazi analogies – it’s cheap and lacks imagination. (I don’t think he should be apologising to the sceptics either, but to the Jews and other victims.) But on other topics the angry rhetoric serves a purpose, addresses a particular (very large) segment of the population, and is in any case a sort of comedic act, part of a journalist-entertainer’s way of making a living. Delingpole’s perfectly capable of defending himself, he doesn’t need any of us to defend him, and nor should we.
Free speech means the freedom to say things we don’t like. Sometimes people need to say things people don’t like specifically to maintain that freedom – to hold the door open, so to speak.
Perhaps, in a way, not being allowed to say it is actually a worse thing than saying it.

Sometimes it is entirely appropriate to compare something to Nazism.
Godwin’s “Law” does not discuss whether it is wrong to ever mention the Nazis, it just states that in any internet discussion is appears to be the observation that if the discussion lasts long enough then the Nazis will be mentioned.
I think that Delingpole’s point was to draw attention to the idea that the warmists are effectively proposing to commit a crime against humanity with their CO2 policies since many have predicted that those policies will lead to increased starvation. What better way to do that than to frame the characters into those of the famous Nuremberg trial?

Deadman at 1:48pm – your included link is dead.

I am one of Delingpoles biggest fans. but he c0cked up. It takes a big man to admit it, and Dellers is a big man.
This fight is only worth the candle if we win fair and square, with dignity, and, yes, even respect

Sorry Anthony but I’m going with James Delingpole on this one, you can’t apologize to a watermelon they don’t have ears. Having said that I dearly love you both for standing up to crooks of so called climate science. Now please kiss and make up, we have bigger issues to deal with than Mann’s sensitivity.

Nullius in Verba says:
April 14, 2013 at 3:55 pm
totally agree!

I think that Delingpole skated up to the line, but he did not cross it. One man’s opinion.

Steven Mosher says:
April 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm
No – I don’t think Delingpole intended it that way – again, it is just another (your) interpretation? This is the same in all written/spoken communication and highlights the language deficiencies between the writer/speaker and the reader/listener !! Obviously, in some cases, usually politically based or advertising media type scenarios – word usage is highly intended to ‘mislead’ or ‘train thoughts’ in specific directions. Tarring or believing the more general writing this same way is dangerous however – as, in a way, you basically get to the point where you are questioning everything being written as some kind of ‘bluff-double bluff’ !! and that would make all written communication completely pointless as you wouldn’t know what the intention really was!!

Godwin’s 2. law:
Most of you won’t be aware of it: Firsty, there is no such thing, because Godwin is not German. If here were though, he would know that EVERY time somebody brings up the N of H word in Germany as a public figure or politician, they will lose their job the next day, or are forced to resign. After watching this for some decades now, I am still laughing myself shitless every time it comes up.
You’d think people smarten up over time – but no. Every so often, some otherwise well settled political or public figure just cannot refrain from dropping the good ole N or H analogy – and BOOM !! The next day they are history 🙂
But it is not limited to Germany… Chomsky once observed about 20 years ago, if anybody suggest you are anit-semitic/a Nazi, you are toast – it will always stick, no matter whether it is true or not, such is the power of the forbidden word.
The last victim died on the news only yesterday… funny shit 🙂 / 😛

My lifestyle is awaiting moderation.

I am British, I read Watts but never Delingpole. Why – because this is about credibility of AGW science and the turning point will come after the scientists turn on their bad apples, not before. The politicians are stuck because they followed the bad apples and cannot admit they have squandered billions and skewed their economies and energy policies by following fraudulent science. Until after the scientists themselves stand up and announce that the link between C02 emissions and climate change is not valid the politicians will remain on the sidelines.
I am more political than science orientated. For my politics I read Richard North (eurreferendum.com) because in my opinion he he is easily the most brilliant political analyst in the British blogosphere. (I detect that there is a rift between my two favorite blogs? I regret that recently R North is not working closely with you.) He bangs heads together, upsets and is rude to everyone, but when he gets a story he dissects it to the bones, rebuilds it with the facts, and puts it out rewritten into the blogsphere. The best stories emerge in Bookers column which in my opinion is much more influential than Dellers, and after that it take six months to two years to bake, and then the stories arrive again as scoops in the media, and things begin to change gradually. Richard North never gets the praise, but he has changed more British policy than any other individual other than very senior ministers. No MP comes near to him as an operator.
Delingpole is a mixed blessing. Yes he will get the stories out, and he is a brilliant wordsmith, but I fear it ends there. I think Dellingpole may turn serious, but non political, scientists away from investigating your stories in greater depth, this is because his reputation is loud and right wing ( He is often invited on political talk shows as a token right winger, and I have never heard him land a solid punch because his spoken output is not as well presented as his written output. In our country people like to pretend they are a little to the left and care for the poor, free health care, single mums and out of work (its a mask). To be right wing is not to care (it is all very shallow).
I think as a blog you need to think your political strategy through.

I’m confused…..how is helping an ass make a bigger ass of himself…..a bad thing?
….I thought we should encourage that

Godwin’s law has a corollary: As debate on any matter of dispute continues, the odds of one side likening its opposition to Holocaust Deniers approaches unity faster than the probablility of the N-word being invoked.

Those who wish to denigrate will use whatever tools are available. Even if they have to fabricate them.
It doesn’t matter if you mention Nuremberg Trials (which have nothing to do with Godwin’s Law, being the product of Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, etc.). As Mann demonstrates in his tweets, they are free to make things up as they go along and to change the meaning of words to suit themselves, the time and the message that they want to send (vis Lewandowsky).
Their objective is to silence dissent. They understand that they can do that by making you think too carefully about what you’re going to say. They rely on the fact that their opponents tend to have a conscience and take responsibility for what they say — that is after all, the primary motivation for speaking up.
The only viable strategy for those who dissent is to speak to those who would silence through the public. i.e. Use plain language to make sure that the public at large understands. It is the public who need to be persuaded by the force of their own understanding. While the climythologists try to persuade with fear and keep on having to escalate to predictions of ever greater catastrophe to maintain the fear, a public understanding of the silliness of the “arguments” put forward by the climythologists is a persistent defence.
When the silencers come up with their preposterous attacks, pull those attacks apart in public to show how empty they are. If necessary, take public action to litigate against those things that clearly cross the line. e.g. Mann’s allegations of Dellers calling for Mann’s murder need to be addressed swiftly and with the full force of the law.

I read James’s article. What struck me was the fact that a tiny fraction of the article was statement, the rest of justification for that statement. In such a case, it would have been more prudent to rewrite the original statement such that an explanation wasn’t required.
To me, I think James was saying that we need a well-orchestrated, well organised, and well researched court hearing about this subject, to the extent that the outcome is fully justified. Unfortunately he used the Nuremberg trial as the example. This I think, was a mistake.
Not exactly Goodwin’s Law; but close to the bone, and too close for comfort for my liking.

When another person/group/mob is trying to inhibit your freedom the last thing you do is let them. For that reason Delingpole should write whatever he bloody well wants to (he does – he gets it!). Can’t believe people want us to censure ourselves because the likes of Michael Mann will feign offence as a argumentative weapon. Oh dear, you’ve fallen right into his trap and you can’t even see it!
And this… “Godwin’s “Law” does not discuss whether it is wrong to ever mention the Nazis, ” – Adam above
BTW, Delingpole was being sarcastic. I mean, really?!

IMO some of you need to slap yourselves.
Delingpole’s article was full of sarcasm.
Michael Mann et al use offence as a weapon. Don’t fall into their trap.
Don’t censure yourself because your enemy wants you to censure yourself. Confront them with the opposite and laugh at them. (see above)
And as poster Adam said… “”Godwin’s “Law” does not discuss whether it is wrong to ever mention the Nazis” .
Godwin was just another guy on the internet who said something about a social topic that has some merit – it ain’t the Law of Gravity so we can take some liberty with it.

IMHO – False “application” of Godwin’s law here by Anthony.
The discussion actually began with a suggestion (by someone, long ago) that skeptics should be subject to Nuremberg-type trials and penalties due to the scale of their (possible, theorized, future, supposed) crimes against humanity, even over a theoretical mechanism.
This was no random comparison with any aspect of Nazism, rather a reference to a historical, highly politicized and emotive response to it.
It seems to me James Delingpole responded quite appropriately, even if his convolutions of prose did allow some hijacking of the message by the even more prose-convoluted Mann…
Anyway, I hold with a few others here that sometimes comparisons with Nazism is a most suitable analogy, and citing of Godwin’s law as an argument winner is a cop-out.

You must understand the UK perspective, different from the US. We are at different stages of imperialism. The US Empire is still at its peak. The UK is 60 years, 2 generations into its post-imperial stage. Typically this process takes 3 generations.
The way it works is that the Imperial caste gets the best jobs for its kids. To do so they destroy meritocratic education. The elite become corrupt and the economy decays, but this has been hidden by borrowing. The elite also push socialism as part of the dumbing down. At present 7% privately-educated control the economy and other areas, e.g. sport.
What Delingpole is doing is to write as one of the elite but a bright one who understands how it is causing the UK economy to implode. The aim of the windmills and green politics is to enrich elite landowners and the Mafia, which in the UK is part of the elite because their secret societies are an integral part of the private school system and this has been so for 140 years.
The best way to attack this corruption is to show the comparisons with Nazism. Green socialist politics in the UK are fascist. The aim is to cut population by 60% with high power costs, herding the people into inner cities to die. Agenda 21 has been used to justify fascism; all it needs is a new Pol Pot.

More strength to you James. And my apologies to anyone that this offends.

I suggest you both bury the hatchet.
For the avoidance of doubt I do not mean bury the hatchet’s in each other:-)
My take on the piece was that it was funny even funnier was Mann’s absolutely ridiculous response.
The alarmists in their minds are either Supermen/Superwomen saving the planet or are martyrs for the cause. Ie they are delusional.

Anthony is a gentleman & a scientist. James Delingpole is a journalist. Both are doing valiant work on the same side of this debate, as Anthony sees it & war, as James sees it.
I rather fear that Anthony has lost the big picture.
The climate scare was cooked up in order that the banksters & ecomarxists could promote their one world govt agenda at the expense of the taxpayer & to the vast profit of banksters & ecomarxists. & they are winning this war.
Anthony is winning his gentlemanly debate on the science, while the western world is coming under the heel of the ecomarxists.
In the US for example, your president wants the power to murder US citizens on US soil without due process of law, & is buying up huge amounts of hollow point ammunition in what is surely a preparation for civil war. The US is devoting millions of acres of prime farmland to produce car fuel, while a doubling of food prices & subsequent food riots have resulted in the revolutions, civil wars & mass slaughters we are seeing & have seen in the Middle East euphemistically known as the “Arab Spring”. Men do not revolt for love of democracy, they will revolt to fill their childrens’ bellies.
This is directly in conformance with UN Agenda 21 policy of world population reduction by ~93%.
Here in the UK we are seeing the mass slaughter of our expensive old folk in our hospitals, with Mid-Staffs hospital revealed to have caused many hundreds of cases of neglect, & up to 1200 deaths where our nurses are overloaded with paperwork, & basic care is left to minimum wage Health Care Assistants, who do not care. thousands of old folk are being put on “The Liverpool Care Path”, which is a euphemism for starving them to death. In addition we have ~20,000 deaths pa in winter where our old folk cannot “heat & eat”.
All manner of abominations are permissible when one is “saving the planet” from the evil of overpopulation.
In my opinion, Anthony could be advancing the debate, & helping James in his war by encouraging James to publish the facts re the slowdown in world population growth, & stories such as Allan Savory’s brilliant greening the sahara techniques, along with Matt Ridley’s Carbon & the Industrial way of life is good for the planet story. James has a most important foot in the Mainstream Media, which, alas, is mostly bought & paid for by the banksters.
Anthony is doing fine on the General Staff, James is fighting at the dirty end, up front in a much fired upon tank.
James is in the hateful position of seeing school friends troughing & profiting well from the windmill scam, while he is far less well rewarded fighting for truth & humanity in the shrinking print media. He cannot provide as well for his kids, & it’s eating him.
To give you an idea of how far along the agenda 21 totalitarian line the UK is please go to:
http://www.ukcolumn.org & click on CHILDREN in the header bar & follow the extremely harrowing video & account of our social security (SS) & police taking a one day old baby from a blameless couple from which they had already removed three other children. 5th Apr, I believe, with a further interview 11th Apr. Thousands of children are being taken from their parents each year, under the most perverted use of the Agenda 21″Precautionary Principle” ever: The children “may be in danger of possible future emotional harm” This is big business in the UK, ~£20billion pa. with 60,000 children being in care. Secret courts lay injunctions on family members & journalists who try to get this scandal in the open air, such as Christopher Booker in the Telegraph. There are suspicions that some of the children are being used as bait to trap politicians & people such as judges, civil servants & police into going along with the more odious agenda 21 policies. Read also the Bonnie Lewis case, an unbelievably James Bond like case of NHS incompetence, SS gunpoint abduction of a sick UK child from a Florida hospital, & the subsequent alienation of that child from her mother using Neuro Linguistic programming techniques.
Remember that when Alabama banned UN Agenda 21, James Delingpole got an honourable mention:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11999-sustainable-freedom-surging-opposition-to-agenda-21-“sustainable-development”
We need both the clear heads on the general staff & the fighters on the front line.

I am loving this thread.
Anthony has more then once swatted me down for making inflamatory remarks about climant scientists and the journalists who promote them. He was right! We must not sink to their level, but
no matter what we say we will fall short of their level in MNHO [my not humble opinion].
On the other hand, I am adament we must call a spade a spade and attack with whatever weapons we have against the horrible corruption of science and politics by the AGW crowd. Dellingpole’s op-ed was not as offensive as Anthony first thought but still was borderline. I am divided in whether to appuld Anthony’s high mindedness or Dellingpole’s down and dirty approach. I wish to maintain the high ground but sure do wish to ravage the enemy.
I love the thread because Anthony is getting swatted down by his readership. He deserves the swatting much less then I did, but still, he was/is making too nice in a death struggle. Godwin’s Law, phooey.

May I suggest Godwin’s Law be renamed Godwin’s Observation, otherwise it implies a prohibition and indeed it is clear that is how many view it.
There are cases which quite legitimately can be compared to fascism, or circumstances surrounding the NAZI era, and need to be shown for what they are. If it causes offence, so what? If it happens frequently, it just shows fascism was not defeated in 1945 and how aware we should be of its ever presence.
Invoking Godwin’s Law is like invoking racism or morals, a trump card to shut down any argument which cannot be won on merit.
Anyway Godwin’s Law really should be called Fawlty’s Law, as Basil got there first, ‘Don’t mention the War’ and just as absurd.
As for James D’s commentary, his job is to be provocative, rile the object of his attention and get them mouthing off so we can all enjoy their stupidity and righteous indignation.
His job is not to spare the blushes of, or to make life easier for those in the Scepticariat.

Three Cheers for Delingpole!
Hip Hip Hooray
Hip Hip Hooray
Hip Hip Hooray
He can be as rude as he likes in my opinion. The Warmists deserve every bit.

On wishing for a ‘Climate Nuremberg’, I think James has chosen his words carefully, drawing an analogy between the proponents of accepted climate science and the Nazis and others who were tried for crimes against humanity . If he had wanted to say ‘Climate Court Case’, he could have done.

So far the wrong way that I don’t even know where to start.
1) “Godwin’s Law” isn’t a law, it’s a censorship tool.
2) Mann’s comment is what should be being illuminated here; basically, pointing out how bad he is at drawing reasonable conclusions from available data as DP didn’t “call for his murder”.
3) There’s no difference (other than someone hasn’t named it) between comparisons of Nazis and comparisons of communism. If the analogy fits; use it (just as Anthony compared The Lew to the communist propaganda machine).
4) Since, the AGW extremists invoked the “Big Lie”; thereby proclaiming they are Nazis to anyone familiar with history, any possible “Godwin’s Law” protection from being called a Nazi is null and void.
5) All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing because they yielded to nonsensical made up laws.

Godwins Law is so 1990s. The modern Internet is a vicious nasty place. And the enemies of freedom deserve to be kicked in the teeth (metaphorically).

[snip – fake name, fake email address, policy violation Mr. Petrie – mod]

How did Dellers actually invoke Godwin’s Law?
His blog post does not mention Hitler or Nazis (Or make any comparison to the same), which is the necessary prerequisite for Godwin.
He offers Mann (metaphorical Mann) an electric chair (Murder she cried!) Moonbat gets a longer neck and Flannery walks like an (ancient) Egyptian into the crocodile tummy.
Dellers mentions Nuremburg twice. How does this short hand for International Military Tribunal
invoke Godwin’s Law? It is amusing that Mr Mann immediately concludes he would not get a fair trial!
Godwin’s “Law” is a reincarnation in the internet era of Leo Strauss’s caution to avoid
Reductio ad Hitlerum as support for an argument. So:
You want to ban use of animals in medical testing.
Hitler liked animals.
[snip]
I part ways with Dellers specifically on dreaming of a Climate Nuremberg,
We already have poor Climate science, we should not add poor justice.

Sorry, but when AGW fanatics act like Nazis and promote Nazi-like thinking, I think it’s entirely fair, and altogether obligatory, to call them out on it, “Godwin’s Law” notwithstanding. If you take “Godwin’s law” to its logical limit, you couldn’t call Hitler a Nazi.
Applying that term to the alarmies is fully justified by their tyrannical and patently racist (because it will harm people of color the most) agenda. It fits the Nazi model perfectly, right down to the new Holocaust it will bring about.

James says:
April 15, 2013 at 7:08 am
Until we are willing to admit and discuss the fact that the watermelon cause produces widespread human suffering and death, we are on the defensive. By trying to win by logic, we are denying ourselves the most effective offensive weapon we have.
Delingpole is entirely correct. We are fighting Nazis. Godwin’s law does not apply.
I echo your thoughts’
PS – I’m lovin the posting and comments, great stuff!

First post ever on WUWT, and possibly the last …
In reply to Hilary Ostrov 🙂 – I can assure you Hilary that Bernard Keane is a non-entity on the Australian scene, whom I had never heard of before; presumably he is well known to the Melbourne left-wing twitterati, whose peculiar view of the world is likely to suffer a spectacular reality check come election day 2013.
imho Dellers is in the right in this contretemps, and Anthony you are in the wrong – simple as that. Leave him alone to contribute to the fight in his own effective style, while you continue using your very different but also valid softly-softly approach. If anyone is owed an apology it is Dellers – from you.

Don’t forget that Michael Mann claimed you were on the pay of “Big Oil” because you gave him a $15 calendar. He will manipulate anything to try and make his enemies look bad, since that is all he can do.

That should read “Godwin drew his “law”…

If you want to read Delingpole’s article you should be able to get to it here – without circumventing the paywall
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/deluged-with-flannery-and-covered-with-viner/story-e6frgd0x-1226611185281
I’m with Delingpole on this one

@ Doug Proctor says:
April 16, 2013 at 5:03 pm
The substance of what you say is reasonable. As a call to prudence before jumping to conclusions or exercising limited understandings, it has credibility and utility.
But some things demand being “wound up” about. There are people dead from AGW policy applications. Killed. That is not something to be calm about. It is not something to equivocate about.
These are facts. Not debatable. The only thing debatable is the level of culpability of individuals in this. This has not been a “mistake”. Actions have been taken in the full knowledge of their implications.
Any call for “moderation” in viewing this is a statement of moral cowardice and is in fact essentially complicity. It is to be an apologist.
Things happen that are beyond the pale. Not to face that and deal with it is the definition of degeneracy, not civilized moderation.