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.
Steven Mosher says:
April 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm
“Delingpole pretends”…
==============
I don’t think he does, right/wrong/or in between, I don’t think he is pretending.
Even idiots make the right call, sometimes, don’t they ?
Personally, I’m just enjoying the give-and-take between Anthony and Delingpole.
As misguided as it might be ?
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!!
In some ways I am not really all that surprised at Delingpole’s diatribe. If you have ever attempted reasoning with those whose eyes are glazed over (they have all the information they need, thank you not at all), which J. Delingpole, A. Watts, S. McIntyre et al have attempted for donkey’s years, then you may someday come to understand:
“Human behavior is profoundly affected by the influenceability of individuals and the social networks that link them together. Well before the proliferation of online social networking, offline or interpersonal social networks have been acknowledged as a major factor in determining how societies move toward consensus in the adoption of ideologies, traditions, and attitudes.
“Specifically, we show that when the committed fraction grows beyond a critical value pc ≈ 10%,
there is a dramatic decrease in the time Tc taken for the entire population to adopt the committed opinion.
“Commonly used models for this process include the threshold model and the Bass model. A key feature in both these models is that once an individual adopts the new state, HIS STATE REMAINS UNCHANGED AT ALL SUBSEQUENT TIMES. (my caps)”
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/social_consensus_xie.pdf (this paper was previously discussed on WUWT)
The problem is in knowing that, then doing the wrong thing about it perhaps before considering the consequences (Jumping the Gun, 101).
Always remember. Commission of a learning experience for the second time accrues to the definition of “mistake”.
The Tao is the transcendent balance of the ying and yang,..please harmonise again AW and JD…
When “the other side” starts apologizing, then maybe you should start asking that of each other.
Why does it seem that “decent people” must infight constantly and crooks rarely do?
Doesn’t seem very decent.
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 🙂 / 😛
I think you were off base on your criticism of Delingpole. He didn’t go over the line, he went near but not over, but perhaps you were too excited to notice that he didn’t actually go over (if you read carefully). This isn’t a boy scout conclave and there will be nasty remarks made on both sides. So be it. The Bernaysian manipulation that has made the global warming scare is a far bigger threat than any other we have faced. Even if they lose that argument, the PtB (powers that be) will find another argument to get behind and threaten our lives and freedoms.
You’re all a bunch of Nazis!
I guess it is true after all….
I’m with you Anthony because the very fact that we stick to the high ground and the facts is how we’ve chipped away at the the nonsense, one listener/reader at a time.
My lifestyle is awaiting moderation.
So you are saying that societies generally have positive feedback making them unstable. My life experience suggests that while this is probably true for some societies over some issues at some times, it is the exception rather than the rule.
Most modern societies are stable. They have a culture of restrained response to provocation which calms things down. The most unstable parts of the world lack this cultural tradition and minor insults lead to blood in the streets.
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.
Really? Given that most modern societies have only been around for a few hundred years, this is a very large stretch. Historically, most societies eventually devolve into chaos and collapse. We are seeing that devolution now with “most modern societies.”
Mark
Streetcred says: April 14, 2013 at 3:44 pm
[snip – policy violation – mod]
Sigh ! … probably for the ‘warm’ word … why don’t you just take out the word ? The rest of the post is perfectly acceptable.
Grant says:
April 14, 2013 at 5:15 pm
You’re all a bunch of Nazis!
I guess it is true after all….
===============
Your comment is proof, that, “the final solution” still needs work.
I’m confused…..how is helping an ass make a bigger ass of himself…..a bad thing?
….I thought we should encourage that
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.
Wow, like I’ve never seen “Skeptics” do 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.
Sadly, Godwin’s Law has immensely inhibited discussion of authoritarianism.
Ever again.
============
James has erred. In the battle you must use facts and truth but never attack the messenger.
Hope he realises this because his Watermelon book is very good.
Why should you be criticised for what he wrote?You didn’t write it.You want to control what people say because it may reflect badly on you?I am sorry but that line of thinking doesn’t wash.You have your own blog no need to control other peoples.Nothing wrong with disagreeing with what he said but to demand an apology is a bit arrogant don’t you think?Where did he personally offend you?You are part of the problem he talks about.You want him to conform to group think.Are you an offence-taker Anthony?
JD from original article.
“Our culture deserves better than to have the terms of debate dictated by malign, politically motivated, professional offence-takers”
.
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.
So, you got two heavyweights going at it.
Best to just watch from the sidelines 🙂
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.
Have just read all the comments so far. In my view, the core of the argument is not about comparisons or Nazism at all. From where I stand, it’s about maintaining a certain kind of valor, a kind of integrity. It’s about being better than them. James D. is a good man who is, indeed, right about many subjects; but he is many other things as well: self-indulgent and self-approving, such that even well-meaning criticism is painful to him; and he falls into the trap of imagining that the wrong-headed are evil. Their policies might be evil, if we judge from the results; but the advocates often think they are doing good. I am not saying that we should cosset evil-doers that claim to do good: I think we should be loud in saying how wrong they are. But in saying what we know to be true, we should entice the skittish with the language that belongs to us: the language of reason and compassion. Why make them think, falsely, that we are somehow on a par with the likes of Mann? Why do such great dishonor and disservice to our own cause?