Last weekend I posted an essay on what I considered to be a pointless invocation of Godwins Law by my friend James Delingpole:
The battle of the pointless Nuremberg insults: Romm -vs- Delingpole
(Note: For those of you who don’t know, Delingpole was the first to pick up on Climategate and give it MSM legs in the Telegraph, for that we owe him gratitude. )
In my essay I had harsh words for people on both sides of the climate debate, pointing out where there’s more than enough instances of blame to go around. Both sides have fallen into the Godwin’s Law trap. From Wikipedia:
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
When James invoked Nuremberg comparisons, he became another Godwin’s Law statistic, joining some other loud voices on the AGW advocacy side of the debate.
Normally, when you point out where they’ve fallen into such a rhetorical trap, especially with friends, they thank you for helping them to realize this. I was quite surprised to find that Mr. Delingpole has made not one, but two critical responses to my essay:
In the Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100211704/apologise-to-michael-mann-anthony-id-rather-eat-worms/
In the Spectator: http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8885551/no-i-wont-say-sorry-even-to-a-friend/
After contemplation of his reaction, I wrote a thank you letter to James for the kind words that he did mention about me (to which he responded positively), and I have now condensed the problem of our differences down to what I believe is a simple misunderstanding on Mr. Delingpole’s part.
I wrote in my original essay:
My point is, no matter who says it, in whatever context, it will turn into a shouting match no matter how many qualifiers or caveats you attach to it, and we simply don’t need it, because all it does is polarize the tribal nature of the climate debate even further.
To Delingpole, take a cue from Dave Roberts at Grist: fix it and apologize. To Mann, Romm, and others, clean up your own house before taking your outrage further.
James took that as me suggesting that he should apologize to Dr. Michael Mann. No, I’d never make such a silly suggestion, because while Dr. Mann does have a right to be upset at what Mr. Delingpole wrote, as is typical of Dr. Mann, he took the issue, made it his own, inflated it, ran with it, and added his own brand of specially seasoned Team Outrage Sauce to it:
Should we be surprised at this inflation of Delingpole’s Godwin’s Law rhetorical flourish to “calling for my murder”? No, not at all, because Dr. Mann is quite good at taking small insignificant bits and turning them into issues, it’s what he does as his hockey stick critics will tell you.
But here’s where I think James missed a critical point, and that might be my fault for not making it clearer in my initial essay. I think my mistake was dashing off my original essay too quickly, which left some things open to interpretation.
I wasn’t suggesting James apologize to Dr. Mann, nooo, I was suggesting that James apologize to climate skeptics.
Why? Well, consider what goes on in the climate blogosphere on an almost daily basis. Since AGW proponents are having a hard time successfully arguing the science these days, what with the pause, climate sensitivity, IPCC modeling -vs- reality and other issues not working out like they hope, and with the public cooling their interest, AGW proponents rely more and more on rhetorical tricks to make their points. We see more and more hyperventilated media claims of every bit of odd weather being caused by global warming, only later to discover they are nothing but hype. We see desperately silly claims of “anything goes” when it comes to connecting AGW to weather, where no matter what the forecast and result, the unseen hand of AGW is to blame.
But, probably the most desperate examples being used by AGW proponents are the execrable tactics pioneered by Dr. Stephan Lewandowski of the University of Western Australia and his sidekick John Cook of Skeptical Science. Their tactic is the same as what was once employed in the communist USSR, a political abuse of psychiatry: paint your opponent as being mentally aberrant.
And, it is we individual climate skeptics who are the ones having to fight those rhetorical battles in the blogospheric trenches. We’ll now be in a defensive position over Delingpole’s article.
My issue with James Delingpole simply had to do with handing our opponents another tool to beat us up rhetorically with. When they want to use a broad brush to paint all climate skeptics as nutters, the last thing you want to do is indulge their fantasy by invoking Godwin’s Law, giving them rhetorical ammo that they’ll re-purpose and fire back at us. One thing I’ve learned is that climate extremists have no shame, they’ll take any issue and throw it back at us with wildly inflated claims, just look at Dr. Mann’s tweet above to see this in action.
In his letter to me James wrote that:
As a scientist you are inevitably going to think this is all about the science. it isn’t – and as I documented very carefully in Watermelons – it never was.
No, I’ve never thought that. While James and I fight the battle using different tools at our disposal, we both know that that battle lines of global warming/climate change are constantly blurred between science and politics. Some days they are entirely interchangeable as Al Gore, James Hansen, Joe Romm, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Bill McKibben routinely demonstrate to us.
I simply think we shouldn’t hand our opponents new weapons (such as Godwin’s Law eruptions) that they will inevitably use against us; it just isn’t a good strategy. For those in the blogospheric trenches who will now be forced to defend Mr. Delingpole against hyperinflated claims of “calling for my murder” like Dr. Mann has made, I think Delingpole should offer a simple mea culpa to them for the extra difficulties they will now face in the battle.
James also wrote this in his letter to me:
We’re free and open in expressing our differences. Compare and contrast the way, for example, after Gleickgate the greens/alarmists throughout the blogosphere and the MSM pretty much closed ranks and got behind Gleick regardless of the gravity of his crime. Our side would just never do that. If any one of us was involved in serious malfeasance like identity theft, we’d be quick to condemn it.
Indeed we would, we police our own, which is why I’m pointing out this Godwin’s Law instance to James.
James does make some very good (and entertaining) rhetorical points though about the eco-oriented left , and you can read about them in his book: Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry, have to agree with James. Your article was just an “own goal” Anthony.
Furthermore, Godwins law is utter nonsense and a tool like the word “racist”, used to shut down debate. Invoking it only reflects negatively on the ignorant person who raises it. If people can not point out the similarity between current actions and the past then there is no possibility of learning from history.
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
Armagh Observatory says:
I’m surprised that Godwin’s Law dates as far back as 1990.
I have no memories of the internet back then and understood that the Interweb only came into being around 1993.
“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 is not all! Bulletin Boards were hosting angry arguments online in the early 1970s…
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:
I regularly read Delingpole’s blog and agree on most points. I thought this article crass, but that seems to be the way the bloke sometimes is and you have to take the man as a whole. He’s recently moved out of London and wrote a blog post about how boring his new neighbors are (after they had kindly invited him over to dinner). I would have commented on his Telegraph and Spectator blogs, but the one is swamped with trolls and the other requires that you register with twitter or some such, so let it pass. An old Norfolk friend once said: you can always tell a Londoner – but not bl**dy much. Ho hum.
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
Thanks for the “Godwin’s law” explanation, Anthony.
I’ve seen it battered about, but never looked it up.
Now I know, thanks to WUWT.
I will now finish reading your post, at my leisure 🙂
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 😉
Anthony: ” “don’t hand them new weapons of your own making””
The reality is, the AGW cult would make something up or make nothing into something anyway.
Why are you picking sides Anthony? You can choose to have certain standards on your blog and Delingpole can choose to say what he wants.
By picking sides you have fallen into the trap the AGW cults wants you to be in. The cult wants the right for any of their fellow travelers to be as vile and disgusting as the want to be, but they want the deniers/skeptics to be saintly so they can laugh at them.
Do not try and be the Miss Manners of the climate blogs unless you attack each and every AGW cult blog first for being vile and disgusting liars (which they are).
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 😉
However, CompuServe (and a few others) WERE around back then, with a wide-ranging audience active in debate and and all …
.
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.
I agree that inflammatory language is a tactical error.
JD disagrees.
Maybe we are wrong and he is right?
But it makes no real difference in the long term as inflammatory language is inflammatory in the eye of the beholder. Godwin’s Law is an obvious example but it is not the only example.
Tying scepticism or warmism to a religious (or atheist) viewpoint, a particular nation’s viewpoint or a wing of the left-right political spectrum… They all will arouse the ire of those who are from a different viewpoint.
And in a divide between empiricism and idealism none of those are directly relevant.
But it’s easy to mix up your own positions.
_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 !!!
“However, CompuServe (and a few others) WERE around back then, with a wide-ranging audience active in debate and all … ”
Well, you lot kept that quiet!
Mind you I was in the Rugby Club (Well, the Drinking Club that occasionally played rugby.)
One lives and learns- thank goodness!
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
The internet existed long before the www (http). Godwin’s law came to be on usenet (nntp) which existed long before the www, and to some degree still exists.
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…
So Anthony Watts is a diplomat as well as a thinker and a gentleman.
I agree with Robert Scott (near the top) but also with the chap that said that sometimes Nazi comparisons are helpful. I don’t approve of calling someone Hitler/Nazi as a mere term of abuse, but extreme situations, while they ‘make for bad law’, help to clarify what’s at stake and thereby illuminate moral distinctions. For instance, the other day someone on a blog was cracking on about legality, as if it were the Holy Grail of all moral action. Much as I support legality in most cases, I found it useful to point out that there were a lot of laws in Nazi Germany, and that many behaviours we consider decent and responsible were illegal in that regime.
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.
James Delingpole polarizes, like M Mann, as soon as I criticized James on this issue, he blocked me on twitter (just like Mann did, and Monbiot) and I have said before if he toned down the rhetoric and focussed on the fact, he might reach more people, rather than preach to his tribe.
Maybe the rhetoric was needed a few years ago, I think Times have changed, more columnists, etc are looking at policies and finding them wanting, the media has now noticed the hiatus in warming over the last 15 years, time for a civilised discussion with those newcomers, not shouting or forcing them to pick sides?
Mann, Romm, etc almost NEED Monckton and Delingpole to rail against (this latest will help them) lest they have to answer more moderate voices that they can’t just shout denier at.
I think it is time for the extremes to be ignored, and the majority to get a say, that means most scientists, most sceptics, not just the vocal ones, if the extremes can’t change with the times, then they will hopefully get ignored not pandered to.
I can’t believe James blocked me, merely for saying he was wrong mistaken, etc and he then started dishing out snide remarks, in a patronizing manner.
Ok, to cheer me on, when it was in his benefit…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/james-delingpole-beats-a-press-complaint-from-uea/
Personally, I think, if Monckton (nobody has heard of him in the UK, associated with UKIP, and a bit fringe) and Delingpole were not involved in the UK, and associated with scepticism, thus others not wanting to be equated with them, a lot of the more probing questions might have been asked by now, Copenhagen and energy policy/recession have changed the political landscape. In the last year I see them as more a hindrance, because of the fighting to win, rather than to persuade people that might be more open to persuasion now, but get alienated by the pitched battles.
but that is just my opinion.
or am I just some sort of ‘climate sceptic traitor’ (in the pocket of ‘big climate’ – of course not) for saying that, as I’ve got a trip (expenses paid) to the Met Office to talk with a few climate scientists, and we will be no doubt be laughing at how delusional Lewandowsky / Cook are. I think climate change science needs to change from within (and is more realistically likely to), with sceptical encouragement, not abuse
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.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Speaking for myself, I haven’t been treated very politely, ever since I first came out of the closet and confessed I felt Hansen was “adjusting the data” in a way that displayed bias. Besides a “denier” I was called a “ditto head.” (I had to look it up.) I wasn’t going to just take such treatment, and my responses could be fiery. Fortunately Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit set a very good example of how to remain polite and dignified.
However as the years have passed I have noticed even Steve has grown a bit acerbic. Willis concluded his last article, “Man, I’m tired of rooting through this kind of garbage, faux studies by faux scientists.” The simple fact of the matter is the fraud is getting too glaringly obvious, and the fraudsters too lame, however I doubt they will ever admit they are basically slinging the bull, while wearing white coats and pretending to talk in a erudite manner.
We have been patient enough. I think it is high time to stop being such sweeties. For every thing there is a season, and the season of sweetness is past.
If Mann doesn’t like it when people’s voices become harsh and strident, he obviously hasn’t listened to himself. He is no child, able to run to Mommy and weep his feelings have been hurt. (Even if he was, Mommy would know “he started it.”) However the fact is we are adults, dealing with Truth, and it is time for him to face the Truth.
Anthony, you admonition to all is correct. This may seem to be a religious war, but it is not. Those always end badly, whether the Inquisition, the Reformation, or the present Sufist Moslem Jihads.
Let’s get back to enlightened science, and leave the rest behind as religious baggage from darker, more ignorant eras.