Monckton’s June Missive invokes “Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies”.
So it is that the intellectual descendents of Goebbels are chained to the work-benches of their spin-factories, churning out an interminable series of colorful fantasies, each repeating and magnifying its predecessor, yet all having no point of contact with reality or truth.
As usual, the Viscount’s emanations string together interesting words and phrase. In addition to Barbara Cartlandesque “insouciantly” and “insuperable”, and the climate-war obligatory “egregious errors”, we readers are treated to:
- abnegation of life
- et hoc genus omne
- will-o-the- wisp, a chimera, a mere simulacrum, an evanescent phantasm
- tired, tedious mendacity
- gruesome excrescence from the useless corpse
- apocalypses worthier of St. John the Divine at his most imaginative than of a businesslike Elliptical Office facing the real and pressing problems that will shortly arise from the President’s gleeful, Peronistic Zimbabweanization of what was once the world’s greatest economy.
“Peronistic Zimbabweanization”? I’ll need to work that into the happy hour conversation later today.
Well, at least he was right about the tired, tedious mendacity part…
Monckton sure knows how to express outrage, you can’t deny that.
Andrew_FL
Agreed.
When I read his prose, feel like I’m 14 years old and reading Regency romances. Zounds! Gavin’s prose sometimes borders on this, but Monckton sounds like he’s a closet Signet novelist going the whole 100 years in frilly pink tulle. But maybe you have to be a woman to be think “pink tulle” when you read that style of writing.
Or.. maybe it’s just a British writing style. Those Regency romances are nearly always set in England, or failing that, some “penniless” British waif (who somehow need not work for a living) got sent to the continent where she encountered the superciliously sneering viscount who, is instantly smitten, but manages to conceal his ardor until some appropriate moment. Then they marry. Happy ending.
Zeke said of Monckton,
“Well, at least he was right about the tired, tedious mendacity part…”
His own, you mean?
Much as I enjoy the Monk’s mellifluous flights of word fancy, really, it’s simply to establish his classically erudite authority over the bumbling cognoscenti. AKA, baffle ’em with bullsh1t. Having experienced gainful employ in the US, believe me, it works a treat… a few posh-sounding words delivered via Received Pronunciation and one’s perceived IQ goes through the roof. Do you colonials get irony yet?
Now that I think of it, I think you all will enjoy the fact that this is supposedly one sentence:
Are there any punctuation police here? Do I misremember the rule, or do we Americans we only use “;” to separate two things that would otherwise individually qualify as full sentences? Or is there some other rule? In anycase, I’m tempted to practice that sentence and record it and show he performance on youtube.
Zer0th: your
Do you colonials get irony yet?
Not yet, but it is on order. Apparently there is some problem with the UK distributor. This kind of delay always happens with a monopoly.
It seems that Monckton has revealed to us from on high a set of truths so possessed of importance, so essential to the atmospheric and economic health of the planet, that clarity, brevity and concision must be sacrificed, for, if one were to have such truth revealed in naked language–words unadorned, ungilded–one’s vision would be spoiled as if the light of the revelations themselves were as of liqour made, and one would be unable to process this Scripture of logic, this Torah of the empirical, which explains why the Viscount is racked both with a passion and a verbose strain inherited from Molly Bloom herself (and who could say but anything to such sentiments so expressed–anything but yes).
Yeah, what Boris said.
Lucia, one does not begrudge a poet the artistic use of punctuation. Or of a comma pause.
Deep,
Of course, though snark made obvious is obviously less snarky.
Boris,
Perhaps it says something about the sheer exuberance of Moncton’s prose that your purposeful parody doesn’t come close to matching it.
Though to be fair, some of the commenters on Anthony’s threads re: Waxman come close.
Yeah well, I’ll bet he’s never heard of the word usufruct though.
Monckton’s writing is classically Pauline in paragraph length. His writing provides an interesting contrast to the depths to which US public education has fallen. “Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline” “Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That’s not saying much for the remainder.” Washington Post 2005
I think over sensitivity to Godwin’s law limits the language and the discussion.
Goebbels is the archtypical example of propaganda churning. Making invocation of even his name when describing the obvious propaganda machine of AGW seems a bit unfair.
Certainly his writing, along with his ethical stance, compares favorably with that of Gore.
Re: lucia (Comment#15342) & Boris (Comment#15346)
I had a Sedimentology prof who often embarked on four minute stream-of-consciousness monologues – though always peripherally on topic – in his lectures. I would listen, mesmerized, and wonder how he could possibly extricate himself from such tangential, melodious excursions. He rarely failed to disappoint me.
A wonderful man and an eloquent, though contortious, speaker. Monckton, sadly, is not in his league.
Just be happy that he’s not writing it in German. In addition to the subtle, floral tone it would have multi-line word concatenations to parse.
Squiggleman:
Maybe he has:
Kohlendioxidtreibhauseffektglobaleerwaermungalarmismusangst
hunter–
Godwin’s law doesn’t say it’s actually a sin to invoke Nazis. The original rule is “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
I’m extending beyond Usenet to some sort of more general “internet” form of communication.
But basically, all it says is that the probability approaches 1. I just noted the event occurred.
David L. Hagen
I’m happy to report that excepting the latin phrase, I didn’t need to look up any words. A firm grounding in Regency Romances, Harlequin Romances, Barbara Cartland and Georgette Heyer and various bodice rippers ensured my language skills were up to par. Sadly, I did avoid taking Latin despite the urgings of the nuns.
“Or is there some other rule?” –
My own literary talents are so meagre that I am usually satisfied if the spellchecker actually finds the words I typed.
It seems that the use of punctuation has changed over the years and is now mainly used to separate syntactic units. However, punctuation has long been used as a rhetorical device to indicate the position and length of spoken pauses.
I suspect that Lord Monckton is well aware of this tradition and, as an expert wordsmith, he is well qualified to treat words and punctuation as his servants and not as his master.
Jorge–
I don’t mind people eschewing traditional rules of punctuation. I was just trying to remember if the “;” rule I described was the rule.
I enjoy Monckton’s writing; it makes me laugh. I particularly love alliteration and consonance.
Can the mention of a Nazi be taken as a sign of frustration? And can the time it takes for a person to mention a Nazi be taken as a measure of their unflappability?
Hank–
You can interpret it anyway you like. But generally, suggesting people you disagree share traits with Nazis is an “ad hominem” attack.
While I agree with Monckton that there is spin going on in politics in general and climate-wars in particular, and I agree that the Nazis engaged in propaganda (aka ‘spin’), I don’t think pointing out this association advances any logical argument about anything.
The following Nazi arguments also don’t work as logical arguments against any position:
“Don’t believe them; they are wearing brown. Just like Nazis!”
“Don’t believe them; they have little mustaches. Just like Hitler!”
“Don’t believe them. They are vegetarians. Just like Hitler!”
“Don’t believe him. He looks just like the fictional bumbling Nazi Sargeant Schultz in Hogan’s Heros!”
Of course, this is not to say that illogical rhetoric doesn’t work in the sense of convincing the audience. Lots of spin and propaganda works.
I agree; arguments to the man aren’t very compelling.
I might even say, if it’s worth arguing about it ought to be something you can put on the blackboard.
““Don’t believe them. They are vegetarians. Just like Hitler!—
Hehe, pretty funny, however one might add that it should never be considered inappropriate to point out that those who would regulate other’s eating habits appear to have adopted the old Hitler youth slogan “Nutrition is not a private matter!”-As a veteran of the food wars, I know what I’m speaking of…
But in general comparisons with Nazis are not helpful because rather than address the issue of totalitarian tendencies they unfairly associate those tendencies with the Holocaust. Vegetarians who push their life style on others are bad enough in there own right IMAO, they don’t need to be called Anti-Semitic to make the point.
Lucia regarding Comment#15342,
Thing is — that sentence reads clearly on the first pass. It takes a clear thinker to write a sentence like that. I would not dare to use that many words strung together — clearly my thinking is not as clear.
Allen 63. I agree that Monckton’s sentence reads clearly on the first pass. So, he does have the gift of writing very long sentences with zillions of modifying phrases which the reader can still understand.
Andrew_FL. Some vegetarians want to be “food police”; some don’t. It looks like we both agree that our opinion of people policing others food choices is best discussed on its own without invoking the idea that Nazi’s also had “food police” tendencies.
Rather than be concerned with Monckton’s word choice, Alarmists should consider reviewing Aplocalyps? No! Always so much easier to attack the man than to attack his facts.
For more on Monckton, please visit this page:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate Bill’s Passage Represents ‘nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting and intimidation’.
Obama advocated “Change”. Obama/Pelosi/Reid are now imposing “Change”. What is all the fuss about? Voters are getting what they asked for!
Pelosi appears to have applied political coercion, bribery and suppression of evidence appears to pass the Cap & trade(tax) bill by 2 votes. Such fascist imposition appears perfectly in keeping with the descendants of Goebbels. The government having racked up $100,000 in debt per family, we appear to be heading for twice that in a short period of time!
Lucia,
Your point is well made and well taken.
I had frankly forgotten the actual law, and was thinking on some of the corollaries.
My daughter is, by the way moving to Berlin this summer for a graduate student exchange program, and will be working on a genetics project.
Health care is next. Bend over and grab your ankles. ( How’s that for flowery language?)
Just wondering, how did the happy hour go?
Hunter–
Happy hour is always happy! 🙂 My husband agreed that “Peronistic Zimbabweanization” is quite an addition to the English language.
Lucia
Careful. Your comment #15374 employs an apostrophe incorrectly. I don’t really care, but you might want to edit it since this a thread where you comment on punctuation and grammar.
Chuckling along 🙂
How is the tip jar thermometer doing? Highlighting Monkton’s pearls is worth a contribution in its own right!
Lucia,
Yes on both counts. HH is always happy, and a growing language is always a sign of vitality.
Stan–
Thanks. There is another internet rule that says all comments commenting on punctuation and grammar will, themselves, contain punctuation or grammar errors. I guess I waited a few posts!
Curious–I’ll have to make commenting on Monckton’s language a regular feature. Even though I laugh at it, he’ll probably be secretly pleased. After all: More readers.
(See, I can write weirdly punctuated sentence fragments too!)
Lucia, in the context of what we’ve been discussing, ie Monckton’s language and his latest missive, did you miss irony of this remark that he made about a white house document…. “The ‘executive’ summary – or, in plain English, the summary?” … On page 4 right above the “kerfuffle” graph.
I admire the way these Brits can debate…. Hitchins, Monckton, Schmidt.
HankHenry-I’m not aware of what you may mean in regards to Hichens and debating-Peter or Christopher? From what I know, Gavin has only utterly failed to win debates, Monckton would probably win on charisma points alone, and Christopher Hitchens got his but kicked, IMAO, by Dinesh D’Souza (which, BTW has nothing to do with climate but rather religion, so…)…I see little similarity other than both Gavin and Monckton being over the top…
Hi all,
I have developed a list of Next Generation questions for global warming. I would appreciate any help you have time to give on both the questions and the answers.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Next-generation-questions-for-global-warming
Tom,
Thanks for attempting this, and thanks in general for trying to sort through skeptical arguments and presenting them to the broader public.
Many of the points you make deal with placement of measurement sites and the urban heat island (UHI) issues. Anthony Watts’ picture gallery is really riling the troops on both “sides”, and we can expect to see some real spit and fire in the near future, but the broader area of UHI is even more contentious. As common in this debate, the argument often breaks down to “Does too! Does not!…etc.” This CA post gives an indication of the subtleties and why AGW believers end up with appeals to authority, which have already surfaced in the comments on your post, and why skeptics end up demanding transperency in data collection and methods. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901
Regarding the Argos buoys, this was later corrected to show no heating, not a loss of heat. http://climatesci.org/2008/04/01/comment-on-weblog-by-josh-willis-titled-josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real/
And be really careful with tropospheric amplification. You may end up in an endless debate about the meaning of the word “fingerprint”.
Finally, I’m not aware that anyone claims CO2 forcings themselves are negative. I’ve seen arguments that feedbacks might be negative (due mainly to clouds), but not the forcing from CO2 itself. Again, a commenter on your blog has already latched on to this one in a rush to dismiss any skeptical argument.
(Would you…and Lucia…prefer these comments be posted direclty on your blog?)
Gillar–
Did you accuse me of being an alarmist?
JohnM–
I’m fine with comments here. Tom may find them convenient at his blog. There is an interesting conversation at his blog, and I posted a few there.
Tom,
One question that comes to my mind is this:
What is the difference between AGW as a political/cultural event and social manias of the past?
The questions at your blog are most excellent, as is your blog itself. It is very bold that you are permitted to pursue this perspective, given where you blog from and who you are blogging for.
Lucia,
A list of objects can usefully be separated by semicolons. The Good Viscount uses it in this way. There are many faults in the AGW paradigm: the lack of the tropospheric warming hotspot; a willingness to hand-wave at the least sign of inconsistency; the similarity of the warming before 1939 to the ‘true’ AGW after about 1975; a failure to forecast with any accuracy even when the models are allowed to cheat by forecasting the past.
In the sentence you quote, I would have been tempted to put a colon after ‘mantra’ — the rest of the sentence amplifies and explains the beginning.
But it doesn’t really matter. English is flexible. It’s best left that way.
JF
(BTW, the above may all be wrong…)
Julian,
I like English being flexible. I just thought the “rule” was that items in a list were separated by commas. As in “I like apples, pears, peaches and grapes.” (I remember some ‘controversy’ over some who prefer ” , and grapes” placing the comma before the “and”.
(BTW: I am the queen of typos. As such, I would never suggest anyone’s argument is incorrect due to typos, weird grammar, odd language etc. But Monckton’s is sufficiently colorful to enjoy discussing. How can you not love some of the new words?)
I think that commas and semicolons can both be used to separate items in lists, depending on the complexity of the items. Commas are appropriate for lists containing single words, as in your example, but if your list contains more complex phrases that include punctuation, the semicolon can make it clearer. Wikipedia has some examples in its article on the semicolon, including this one: “Examples of familiar sequences are: one, two, and three; a, b, and c; and first, second, and third.”
Monckton’s pomposity is rather amusing, his love of the ad hominem is interesting in one who protests about its use by others. That he frequently misidentifies it is another of his characteristics, i.e. making mistakes: for example his mistaken ‘Churchillian’ quotation which was in fact due to Roosevelt! Why someone who lives in Scotland should identify himself as ‘The curse of Scotland’ is also a mystery.
This is formally, ;-), known as reductio ad Hitlerum.
Extensions or corollaries to Godwin’s Law are that the first person to invoke Hitler or Nazis loses the argument and that there will be no further useful discussion on the particular thread involved once Godwin’s Law applies. Of course there are then people who will try to misuse Godwin’s Law and reductio ad Hitlerum too.
I see I’m not the only person to use Peron as a comparison to a certain modern political figure. Considering the source, though, I may have to rethink my position.
“Phil 15433 Monckton’s pomposity is rather amusing, his love of the ad hominem is interesting in one who protests about its use by others.”
Why should the devil have all the good tunes?
Lucia: Monckton reminds me of the British Ambassador in ‘The West Wing’. I loved his opening gambit to President Bartlett’s wife who turned up in a cocktail dress en route to a dinner dance: “Ah Abigail, fabulous breasts!”
Did the good lord ‘goose’ you in the past, perchance?
Phil.
Maybe he thinks his neighbors don’t like him?
Dewitt– I’ve read several people compare Obama’s economic plan to Pernonism.
Tim James– I’ve never met the good lord. So, no he hasn’t goosed me. I’m afraid I am not on his list of people to bother to name specifically in his missives. Those on the list seem to be a) Gore, b) Osamabamarama and b) Gavin. (I don’t think he ever names Obama by his real name. There is always an attempt to coin a new nickname.)