I was wondering when SPPI would finally figure out they need a blog. They started a sort of blog (no comments). Yesterday, in what appears to be the blog’s 12th post, Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchly posted Hitler Youth in Denmark – again, thus proving his earlier spoken words were not accidental. He really, truly wants to go for arguing by calling people Nazis.
I think have evidence that Godwin’s law can be edited to the more general:
“As a
Usenetdiscussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
I recall Hansen comparing hopper cars with coal to Nazi death trains too. Maybe there is a corollary: As the discussion becomes more heated, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler by opposing sides of the discussion approaches one.
Lucia,
I think we’re at the point where the name calling has gotten so absurd, that calling somebody a ‘Nazi’ no longer has any special meaning.
We live in a world teeming with Deniers, Denialists, Pseudo-Skeptics, Right-Wingers, Tea-Baggers, Meanines, Neo-Conservatives, etc…. these names get flung around with impunity every hour of every day and they all mean the same thing as ‘Nazi’- all these people are Really Bad People.
I think you are being a little biased in highlighting someone who uses the word ‘Nazi’ without mentioning all the others.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Godwin’s law applies to Nazi’s, not other things.
If your point is there is a lot of general name calling: Yes. Both sides do it– but use different names. The interesting thing is that both “sides” like the Nazi analogy for the other side.
Name calling’s not a good method of argument. Period. Of course, by the same token a group barging into disrupt a meeting is not a stupendously good method of argument either. That’s what a pro-action group did to Monckton’s meeting. That said, it would be wise if Monckton avoided the Nazi-label hurling.
Well, the militant environment/climate activists do have certain fascist elements…
Hoi Polloi,
“Well, the militant environment/climate activists do have certain fascist elements…”
You mean the Hammer-Fisted, Do Not Question Our Authority, Marching Orders, Divide And Conquer, and Destroy The Enemy stuff?
Indeed.
Andrew
Ah, yet more Peronistic Zimbabweanization afoot in Notahopenhagen 😉
The corollary to Godwin’s Law is that whoever made the comparison automatically and immediately loses the debate.
There is some debate over whether the term “denier” is supposed be an allusion to holocaust denial. I don’t agree with that, but I still stay away from using the word (I’m Canadian so I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, eh).
There’s definitely no debate about Monckton though. He’s going all out. Apparently at least one of the people he called a Nazi was Jewish. The guy has totally lost it.
Lawsy!
I need to come here more often. What a refreshing dip in the waters of sanity. (Even if those waters are heating up)
Yesterday, I posted on WUWT that Coleman calling AGW advocates “monsters” was little different than the “denier” label. And I regularly post challenges to the use of “denier” at Daily Kos. Neither position seems to win me many friends – just Bronx cheers.
I’ve been here before – but I need to make it a more regular stop. Thanks for your perspective.
sorry folks, but i am really glad that Monckton is not on my side in this debate.
Lord MoB is understandably outraged that the bed-wetting liars, hucksters, shysters, fraudsters, and racketeers (ever-more-extravagantly rewarded with honors and prizes for their ever-more-extravagant falsehoods, fables, and fictions) are engaging in crude denigration of their opponents.
Actually, whilst we’re mentioning Laws, here’s a derivation of Poe’s Law:
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody….Lord MoB…. in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
I think you warmers are overlooking something.
You are exhibiting the same predictable behavior you always do.
When your side cannot maintain a scientific argument, you attack a political opponent.
Now you may not understand your own behavior, but others do.
Andrew
I think there may be a cultural bias here on the terms “Nazi” and “fascism”, between the new world and the old world. I think in europe it is used as a description of “totalitarian mentality”, no direct connection with Jews or the holocaust as far as it pertains to Jews. In the ambient new world literature the fact that the “holocaust” pertained to “non Arians” is glossed over. A great number of Roma and people from occupied eastern europe, irrespective of race, ended up in the crematoria and forced camps.
In addition a large part of europe was under the communist regime which also had all the same markings of totalitarian government control and organization of youth. I think that Monkton does not concentrate his name callings on”communists” because it is more politically correct to bash Nazis than communists. There are substantial active legal communist parties all over europe, represented in the parliaments and the european parliament so one is more careful in the comparisons. There are no fascist or Nazi parties, yet.
I do not approve of the rhetoric, one could use Orwel and 1984 to have a similar effect without raising the hackles of new world people.
It’s MoB who’s doing the attacking, Andrew – and you, apparently, are rather supportive of the approach. Don’t you get the point that he’s complaining about ‘denigration of opponents’ when that’s exactly what he engages in in just about every speech? I’m perfectly capable of maintaining a scientific argument (as opposed to this rhetorical hyperbole from Monckton) – where would you like to begin (though not on this thread)?
anna v (Comment#27548)
Sorry, Anna, but I disagree with you. I’m in Europe and it raises my hackles too. Besides, Monckton is perfectly prepared to denigrate his opponents thus: “those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds”, so I don’t really think he’s avoiding the association.
“It’s MoB who’s doing the attacking, Andrew”
Not on The Blackboard, he’s not.
Andrew
“Not on The Blackboard, he’s not.”
Ah no, you’re right Andrew – it was you, in this post:
“Well, the militant environment/climate activists do have certain fascist elements…â€
You mean the Hammer-Fisted, Do Not Question Our Authority, Marching Orders, Divide And Conquer, and Destroy The Enemy stuff?
Indeed.
Andrew
Simon,
OK, what do you think is the strongest piece of evidence for AGW?
Andrew
It’s the MoB MOB who’s doing the attacking.
There, fixed it for you Simon
Anna v, I think you’re right, but there’s another dimension to it as well. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Godwin was an American. Americans, due to the fact that the Bill of Rights has been absorbed into the culture, have a different notion of where the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is. In Europe, there are anti-denial laws, ironically imposed by Americans, that would be unconstitutional in the US. What appears to be Nazi-like behavior to Europeans seems to Americans to be on the fringe of acceptable behavior, and the concept of free “speech” has been interpreted by the American Supreme Court to include non-verbal acts of communication such as this.
Thus for an American, Nazi analogies seem over-the-top, when they seem perfectly reasonable to an European such as Monckton. Interestingly, as a side note, Great Britain is currently considering reforming their libel laws to be more in line with the American notion of free speech, because it’s creating problems for the UK.
So yes, you’re absolutely right that there’s an old world/new world dichotomy, and in this European context, what Moncton said isn’t at all over-the-top. I’m not defending it, mind you; just agreeing that it’s directly linked to Europe’s different understanding of the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech. It’s somewhat ironic, but nonetheless true, that because Americans have a higher tolerance of disruptive “speech” (in the broad sense of the word), they have a lower tolerance of hyperbole.
Simon,
You are missing the point. If AGW was truly a scientific argument then you could/would stick to the evidence. But you and others don’t, because it’s not convincing.
I and others have claimed for years that AGW is political. I have no problem with political debate. But let’s not confuse the scientific with the political.
Andrew
“Simon,OK, what do you think is the strongest piece of evidence for AGW?”
Please note the most important letter in that sentence is the “A”
A few thoughts:
It is tempting to compare pushy, authoritarian types to Nazis, but that is so 1940s.
Interrupting a speech is rude behavior, but I can’t say I would never do that either.
At some point, when an discussion or argument, reaches the point when neither side is going to accept the other sides’ points or point-of-view, it is better to just go your separate ways.
Sometimes you come to the the conclusion that the other side is “just the enemy” and has to be insulted, if not defeated.
Although I am generally calm and rational, I am always on the lookout for creative putdowns of my detractors.
I won’t start an ad hominem attack but I will gladly throw myself into the fray once it starts. It is a form of sport or entertainment.
Back in the mid-nineties I coined the term “enviromental cases” in response to to some tree huggers that were annoying me. I still use that occasionally.
When “climate change'” became the new foundation for authoritarian reformers with “Jesus” complexes, I began refer to them as “climate thugs.”
Back to lurking.
Andrew_KY (Comment#27553) December 11th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Simon,
OK, what do you think is the strongest piece of evidence for AGW?
Specifically in the context of this thread’s topic, the fact that Monckton resorts to such emotionally-charged hyperbole. A strong scientific case – either way – will stand on its own terms. I’m suspicious of this type of propagandising on either side of an issue (you could probably find examples of ‘CAGW’-speak where I’d agree with you that it was equivalently suspect).
If you want to discuss the case more generally then choose an appropriate thread – I won’t here.
“If you want to discuss the case more generally then choose an appropriate thread – I won’t here.”
Simon,
I’m a little “surprised” at your response. I’ve never seen a warmer evading a question before. In fact, I never conceived that such a thing was possible, considering the pristine credibility of warmers. 😉
Andrew
I can’t figure out how to post over at Brenchley Blog! Despite the violation of Godwin’s law I welcome this new addition to the climate blog-o-sphere. I get the feeling Monckton has actually read the whole IPPC report in all its manifestations and can call to mind the details raised therein with some accuracy. I have to respect that. I think he would cream Gore in a debate.
I think there’s a big difference between someone calling someone else a Nazi from the comfort of one’s home office and doing so when your meeting has been physically disrupted in an inevitably threatening manner, using tactics which *are* in fact, drawn from the Nazi handbook –
“How those young men did their job!
Like a swarm of hornets they tackled disturbers at our meetings, regardless of superiority of numbers, however great, indifferent to wounds and bloodshed, inspired with the great idea of blazing a trail for the sacred mission of our global warming movement.”
Mein Kampf
MoB does egg it to the max, but he was there, while our (most admirable) host was composing a haiku or whatever.
PS. Yes, I added a couple of words to the quote.
Andrew_KY (Comment#27560)
I answered two posts earlier accusing me of ‘diversionary tactics’ because I had responded to others putting off-topic points. This thread is clearly not about the basic evidence for AGW. Put your question to me somewhere more appropriate and I will answer it, as you very well know.
This is like the Dreyfus affair. It is as socially divisive, and like Dreyfus, it is drawing people in to confrontations on issues unrelated to the rather specific scientific questions involved.
We need to focus on really simple questions. Like, what is the evidence that today’s warming is exceptional/ If exceptional, what is the evidence that it is CO2 caused? If caused by CO2, what is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 rises? What is the evidence for the nature and scale of feedbacks to either amplifiy or reduce the CO2 driven warming? Also, what is the evidence that lowering CO2 will lower the temperatures, a question which is logically independent of the questions about the causes of warming?
And finally, if we decide that lowering CO2 will lower temps, by how much do we have to lower it?
All this arm waving is just people with personality disorders who do not know how to think, well, …waving their arms.
Simon,
How about you just answer the question?
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#27567) December 11th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Simon,
How about you just answer the question?
Ok. I’ve made the point twice that i don’t want to go off topic, so no one can reasonably accuse me of being happy to do so.
Your question:
“what do you think is the strongest piece of evidence for AGW?”
My answer:
The evidence of an increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic emissions.
Having read Monckton ‘s entry, while I don’t think using the term Nazi is a good move, on the other hand I understand his anger at being threatened by a bunch of thugs.
They may not be fascist but they sure are taking their tactics from that book.
Simon,
(Sincerely) Thank you. That took few tries. I do not know why it did, though.
Andrew
Andrew_KY asks:
“what do you think is the strongest piece of evidence for AGW?â€
Simon Evans replies:
“The evidence of an increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic emissions.”
.
That gets you a lukewarm 1C. So what’s the evidence for strong positive water vapor feedbacks that run away unimpeded by any negative feedback from clouding? It’s the models fit to the data, is it not? That’s where the alarming scenarios come from – the only ones that matter.
Lucia,
It would have been more appropriate if you had quoted the piece so your readers could see that he quotes others using the NAZI term to describe the over the top tactics of the AGW enforcers. According to the description of what actually happened (yes, it’s his) and the quotes (yes, he decided what to quote) the word seems appropriate and it didn’t originate with him.
Mike Godwin could retire by now if he got a royalty fee for everytime his law is invoked.
For the record, he is alive and well, by the way.
I wish Monckton would stop doing this.
Let the young thugocrat wannabes dig their own, unique hole.
We do not need to lower our credibility by having people endlessly claim that by use of the ‘n’ word we automatically lose.
Distracting from the point of young thugs storming in and disrupting free speech is too bad.
The actions of the thugs speak more loudly than any historical name calling, however appropriate it may be.
Weather Report:
It’s very cold here in Kentucky.
(The Rhetorical Question approaches, get your catcher’s gear on!)
But it should be 1C colder, right?
Andrew
Simon
A large measure of Monckton’s argument is purely political. There’s the whole “new world order” thingie…. He’d actually be better off just sticking with that end.
I should make a podcast reading the first page of his climate gate pdf. It’s 40 or more pages long.
Lucia,
Sorry to disagree. My reading of Godwin’s law is that it relates to (online) discussions. Monckton’s characterization relates to actions taken against an event and against him. Apart from the question whether his comparing the bad actors to nazis is right, this is markedly different from calling names just because one runs out of arguments. I would be hesitant to judge whether or how much he did overreact but it is clear to me that Godwin’s law is not applicable here.
bender (Comment#27571) December 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Andrew_KY asks:
“what do you think is the strongest piece of evidence for AGW?â€
Simon Evans replies:
“The evidence of an increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic emissions.â€
.
That gets you a lukewarm 1C.
1.2C according to Hansen et al., 1984 and Bony et al., 2006.
So what’s the evidence for strong positive water vapor feedbacks…
It’s not modelled as strong as many people think (not saying you, bender). C02 x 2 + WV/lapse rate/surface albedo feedback suggests 1.9C +/- 0.15C, i.e. about +50% on top of the C02 only effect. The WV feedback evidence is shaping up well, I think – current views summarised here –
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf
Of course, there’s a fair bit depending on recent satellite obs, but this should become clearer all the time.
…unimpeded by any negative feedback from clouding?
Who knows the cloud feedbacks well enough yet? All the AR4 models have positive cloud feedback, but this is the great source of uncertainty, as we both know.
That’s where the alarming scenarios come from
Indeed – but it is also from this uncertainty that the least alarming scenarios are derived! I do not understand why a very uncertain low positive or negative cloud feedback should be thought of as the default position when an equivalently uncertain high positive feedback is deemed ‘alarmist’. If we put the value-laden language aside, they’re both very uncertain.
I say we should get on with finding out more about cloud feedbacks!
Here’s a video of Monckton the next day, after he had calmed down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw&feature=player_embedded
He’s calm but still not rational.
He said something about a statistically significant cooling over *15* years from all 5 of the major data sets. Can anybody collaborate that?
Andrew_KY,
Our dear viscount is not exactly known for making the most… compelling arguments. Remember his wonderful APS piece?
Whenever I hear someone ask for the “basic evidence for AGW” on this blog I get an impending sense of deja vu. I wonder why… ;p
JohnV (Comment#27581) December 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Here’s a video of Monckton the next day, after he had calmed down
Some pretty scary Nazis he’s taking on there! 😉
JohnV-
I couldn’t corroborate that assertion.
For 1995-present:
GISS: 0.1477 ± 0.086 °C/decade
HAD: 0.0932 ± 0.1703 °C/decade
NCDC: 0.1212 ± 0.08 °C/decade
RSS: 0.0796 ± 0.1519 °C/decade
UAH: 0.0932 ± 0.1703 °C/decade
Just to stir the discussion up a bit, is this over the top, and why? Is there, and should there be a counterpart law for Stalin analogies? We have Feldman’s law for claims of racism. I could probably find a few others. Is there something unique about comparisons to Hitler, or is this just part of a larger phenomenon of waving a red herring?
He said something about a statistically significant cooling over *15* years from all 5 of the major data sets. Can anybody collaborate that?
The nearest i can get to this is Lindzen’s statement that “there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years”, which he wangles from considering only annual rather than monthly data:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
Maybe Monckton just translated ‘no statistically significant warming’ into ‘statistically significant cooling’ and added a year on for effect?
Very evidently a charlatan anyway.
Calvin–
I don’t think the Hitler phenomema has very much to do with red herrings.
One problem with calling things “red herrings” is that sometimes, the accusation means nothing more than “I demand we talk about A, and only A. If I enter the room, and people are talking about ‘B’, I will rushup to everyone and tell them ‘B’ is a red herring because the one and only subject of any importance whatsoever is ‘A’.”
We’re seeing a lot of this in climategate. If people want to discuss what the emails say, there is a group of people who immediately start to bellow, “That’s a red herring. What matters is temperatures rose, AGW is real, yada, yada, yada.”
Well… what matters in the context of what? People are allowed to discuss what is discussed in the climategate letters. They can discuss it on news shows, blogs etc.
Of course, it is possible to derail nearly any conversation by introducing Nazi discussions. But, I don’t Moncton’s usage amounts to ” red herring.”
Simon Evans (Comment#27549) December 11th, 2009 at 10:34 am
“anna v (Comment#27548)
Sorry, Anna, but I disagree with you. I’m in Europe and it raises my hackles too. ”
Being in Europe and being European by birth are two different things. I am just curious as a sociological point. Since I am Greek, it might be that only occupied by German countries have the attitude of it being OK to use the Nazi word.
I suspect that another way of making it OK in Europe is due to the fact that Germans are our best friends now, so, since the generation that suffered under the Nazi boot is still alive, one must separate the Good Germans from the Bad Nazis, the Good Italians, from the Bad Fascists, we are all one european family now after all. Nazi and fascist have become an adjective to indicate totalitarianism tendencies in some people, and do not color the originators of the word.
The first reference to “deniers” that I am aware of was by Elizabeth Drew who explicitly equated AGW catastrophe deniers with Holocaust deniers and the term has stuck.
Dr. Hansen stands by his equating coal carrying freight cars with rail cars carrying Jews to the crematoria.
Monckton is, IMO, properly marginalized by many sceptics for his over the top rhetoric. When do the warmers marginalize their own Nazi equating excesses?
How man people have starved to death due to miscalculations by government food planners who were led astray by their scientifficly backed belief in AGW? Has AGW orthodoxy killed more people than the Nazis?
Anna is correct. It makes a difference if people around you grew up in a world in which these mythical beings were actually in power. When people in the US invoke the Nazis, its like they are playing Wolfenstein.
When Europeans do, its like they are talking Roosevelt or Truman, its guys who were in power not too long ago. Makes a difference. There were films on TV of Mosley harangujng the blackshirt rallies in the UK the other week when I was there. Its living memory still.
Monckton is talking behaviour, the breaking up of meetings where the ‘wrong’ ideas were being discussed by the ‘wrong’ people, which we really did last see in Europe in the thirties. Well, in Eastern Europe we saw it into the eighties of course.
Monckton is still rhetorically hysterical of course. Not defending the rest of it, which is in very bad taste. But I can understand why the Germans reacted as they are reported to have done, if they did.
Mike C: Yes, probably. More than the Nazis. But still less than Mao and the Great Leap Forward.
Would it still violate Goodwin’s Law if the statement was true?
Yes Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchly blurs science and politics; but the AGW proponents mix scientific and political arguments and sometimes you have to debate in uncomfortable territory chosen by your opponent. And yes he doesn’t always get the science right, but who does, and unless he is being accused of deliberately falsifying arguments I give him a pass and respect the fact that he is still standing to argue another day. And no his approach isn’t suitable for the mathematically rigor of this blog, but he does attract the audience that allows the science to gain traction. I agree with Denny (Comment #27577). Perhaps he should have referred to the intruders as people who were “… fanatically dedicated to, or seeks to control, some activity (or) practice†(onlinedictionary.com definition of Nazi). What should he have said (remain silent?) or done (walk off stage?).
one does not need to read any further than his HIV claims, to understand that basically everything that Monckton says is false, and the majority of it is also disgusting stuff.
i am sorry, but that people would really quote him, applaud his talks or agree with the points he makes, is really beyond me.
Has AGW orthodoxy killed more people than the Nazis?
sad stuff. really sad stuff.
Anna,
Well, we probably don’t disagree much really. I think calling people ‘Nazis’ because they disrupt your meeting is pretty gross, really. Some people have disrupted the meetings/gatherings of Nazis over the years – what should we call them? Were the Allied forces Nazi because they disrupted the Nazi military ambitions? It just becomes a silly accusation. Any heckler at a political meeting is now a Nazi! Any demonstrator is a Nazi!
There are many young people in Copenhagen demonstrating their outrage at how little may be done to mitigate what they fear. People may think they are wrong, misguided, whatever, but that doesn’t make the expression of their views fascist!
I support Monckton’s right to say what he thinks. But I also support the right of some others to interrupt him and say what they think (and it was a brief interruption, if you look into it). Big deal! there was no violence. I’d guess the same young people (mainly) would be the ones to interrupt the fascists should they come across them (actually, I wouldn’t guess it, I’m pretty damned certain of it. We have a crypto-fascist party here in the UK, and yes indeed, it is the same young people interrupting those bastards).
So Godwin’s corollary suggests that an argument about the use of the term Nazi / Hitler is lost from the moment it begins…
the history of the German occupation of Denmark is a pretty interesting one. i assume i am not the only one who knows very little about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Denmark
i do not really understand, how those shouting “Hitler youth” fits into this, but i guess the Lord has special sources.
————————
Would it still violate Goodwin’s Law if the statement was true?
you mean if that jewish environmentalist was indeed a nazi?
or are you talking more generally?
—————-
Yes Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchly blurs science and politics; but the AGW proponents mix scientific and political arguments and sometimes you have to debate in uncomfortable territory chosen by your opponent.
sorry, but over the last months, scientists had their e.mails stolen and published. they are now receiving death threats. and Monckton is calling demonstrating youths “nazis”.
i guess you have some recent examples that demonstrate the other side of this?
or did you just pull a “Seit 5:45 Uhr wird jetzt zurückgeschossen!”?
And yes he doesn’t always get the science right, but who does, and unless he is being accused of deliberately falsifying arguments I give him a pass and respect the fact that he is still standing to argue another day.
interesting point, and i hope you do the same with scientists who support AGW.
not always right? 15 years cooling? HIV?
the term you were looking for is “NEVER”.
And no his approach isn’t suitable for the mathematically rigor of this blog, but he does attract the audience that allows the science to gain traction.
ouch. what he says isn t right, but you like how he attracts the masses? “demagogi” has a very special meaning in this context. you might actually want to pick up a book about the third reich…
I agree with Denny (Comment #27577). Perhaps he should have referred to the intruders as people who were “… fanatically dedicated to, or seeks to control, some activity (or) practice†(onlinedictionary.com definition of Nazi). What should he have said (remain silent?) or done (walk off stage?).
a pretty weird definition of the term. and indeed my look at it found this:
Nazi a German member of Adolf Hitler”s political party
The problem is the lack of a good term to describe radical thugs such as the ones that attempted to intimidate Mockton and the audience. Russians seem to use a word that translates as hooligan, but that seems rather old fashioned in English. Facist has become something of a suffix to denote someone who attempts to intimidate others by using groups of threatening individuals to supress the expression of views. So ecofacist or maybe in this case climate-facist might be resonable terms. Is there some other wording that would be more accurate?
“groups of threatening individuals”
Where are you getting this crap from? You’re just making it up, yes?
John V #27581,
Its all very well asking for ‘collaboration’ of what Monckton said but when are you going to collaborate all the assertions you have been making over the years and actually post them on a blog where they can be properly looked at?
Its all very well asking for ‘collaboration’ of what Monckton said
Well, actually, yes, it is all very well to be asking for any conceivable confirmation of what Monckton said.
The fact is that he was talking complete and absolute shite.
I look forward to seeing who will be the first “doubter of AGW stuff type of person” to come out and say that.
Until any one of you does, you’re all dishonest shysters. You’ve not done so yet already, so here’s your challenge:
Can doubters of AGW type of people be honest? Can they call a pile of shite when it’s there to be seen by all? We look forward to discovering how many of you can reach the integrity bar! It’s set pretty low in this instance!
“I say we should get on with finding out more about cloud feedbacks!”
.
Indeed. Make my carbon tax proportional to the weight of evidence that clouds won’t cap the predicted heating. I’m willing to change my lifestyle, but only strictly in accordance with the weight of the auditible evidence.
Here’s a security guard doing a nice impression of a Nazi when Schneider gets asked about Climate Gate in Copenhagen
HT Jeff at tAV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded
Make my carbon tax proportion to the weight of evidence that clouds won’t cap the heating
Why should they be presumed to be heating -capping? What’s your reason for favouring that extremely uncertain possibility?
It pains me a great deal that the adjectives nazi and fascist are often misused and cheapened. I would rather not use words like ecofascist for people who I disagree with. If you like to be as serious about these words as about climate, reading Goldhagen (Hitler’s willing executioners) would be helpful. BTW, you may also change your mind about whether a nazi is simply a member of the Nazi party.
On a different note, I am also wondering about the use of the term alarmist only for people who are very concerned about AGW. For the record, I am close to being agnostic on this, with some bias in favor of AGW. But my question is: are people not exaggerating the expected negative effects of what “warmers” might do? Is it not alarmism to think that should they prevail (and be wrong) will have disastrous consequences? Just wondering…
Simon Evans,
I agree that Monckton’s language is pejorative and unhelpful.
However, I would add that during 25 years of campaigning activism with CND in the UK, I had considerable interaction with environmentalists in Greenpeace, FoE and other organisations. And by and large the vast majority of them would brook no arguments that questioned even the least of their beliefs. (This applied to many CNDers as well, although one saving grace of that organisation was that it was relatively democratic, whereas GP, FoE etc were decidedly not).
My experience tells me that it is not too wide of the mark to say that many environmental organisations display totalitarian-like tendencies. Indeed I believe George Monbiot, himself, has recognised this in the past.
are people not exaggerating the expected negative effects of what “warmers†might do? Is it not alarmism to think that should they prevail (and be wrong) will have disastrous consequences?
You’re right, of course, Denny – the economic collapse alarmism is hysterical, and very conveniently it doesn’t have to be tied in to any numbers.
But what should we expect? Such alarmists are alarmed by the prospect of paying one single dollar.
Dave,
My experience tells me that it is not too wide of the mark to say that many environmental organisations display totalitarian-like tendencies.</I.
I' not inclined to disagree with you, actually – the nature of organisations, endemically.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Monckton talking shite though! 😉
Dave,
I don’t disagree with you about the tendency of organisations to become doctrinaire.
Not quite sure what that has to do with Monckton talking shite, but whatever 😉
The Hitler Youth phenomenon was real and destructive. The same indoctrination of naive youth has been a feature of human calamities since recorded time. It was present in the misguided patriots that marched off to the Boer War. Again, with many who served in Vietnam only to have their illusions, delusions and lives shattered. It continues in the present day with suicide bombers and terrorists.
I disagree with much of what Monkton says, but he is quite right to identify the dangers of inflaming youthful passions to ignorant causes irrespective of Godwins Law.
Alan,
One man’s ignorant causes…
Its a weird world when perfectly rational people can come to completely opposite conclusions with the same access to evidence (internet, journals, etc.) to the point where they may never find common ground on an issues. I personally find it rather scary and humbling, certainly humbing enough that I would never call someone who disagreed with me on climate science a Nazi, or teaching mainstream climate science to young people “youth indoctrination”.
This blog does play a rather unique role (thanks Lucia!) as somewhere where we can escape our respective echo chambers to have an occasional good discussion, however.
Zeke, I have no problem with informed opinions differing. I have a problem with crusades where the pawns on the front line have no clue about the issues they are supposedly fighting for.
That is my definition of an “ignorant cause”.
Climate change is a classic case because it is so complex that no-one currently understands it, let alone non-technical people. So it has been wrapped up into an emotive scare story for them to create the current global moral panic. And the sharp guys, political, financial and opportunist see big money as the herd charges.
Alan,
the pawns on the front line have no clue about the issues they are supposedly fighting for
Excuse me, but I don’t think you have the first idea of what these ‘pawns’ know or don’t know. My daughter is in Copenhagen, and she knows a lot more about this matter than I do. She is not a thug, she is not violent, but she is demonstrating her views.
i had this daft notion that freedom of expression was a principle dear to the hearts of libertarians. Shucks, perhaps I got that wrong.
What do you think of Monckton’s lies (fifteen years of statistically negative trend)? When you’ve stated on that we’ll have a better idea of whether or not you can be judgemental about the ‘pawns’ at Copenhagen.
I think it would be a pity if calling Godwins Law closed down any discussion of historical patterns in human behaviour and a specific possibility of some such pattern leading to tyranny. It would be useful, in this context, to wonder what the nazis might have done with the worldwide web at their disposal?
Of course Godwins Law is all too often proved, but what a loss it would be if a nascent tyranny was able to develop partly as a consequence of the public silenced by the accusation of this law?
If the nazis had a version of Godwins Law in their formative years, you can be sure they would have used it constantly to ridicule and remove obstacles in their rise to power.
Simon, is your daughter a scientist?
Yes, freedom of expression is dear to my heart and I am a libertarian. So is freedom of action – for everyone.
Is your daughter campaigning for voluntary actions by the world’s people or for compulsion?
I don’t think anything of Monckton’s opinions on science since I disregard all commentaries from non-scientists or engineers on those matters. If I had to make a call, I would say that he and Gore are roughly on an unreliability par.
Just to clarify, Alan, did Monckton lie about a fifteen year statistically negative trend or did he not? It’s a straightforward question. You talk about the pawns on the front line having no clue, so I would like to know clearly your view on this. It’s a straight question, so give a straight answer.
Alan Wilkinson (Comment#27632) December 11th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Simon, is your daughter a scientist?
Yes, so?
Simon Evans asks:
“Why should they be presumed to be heating-capping?”
Nothing should ever be presumed. Clouds can cool. Heat can escape. The planet is not necessarily in thermodynamic equilibrium. I’m not willing to presume how all these effects might balance each other. But I’d love to see it all explained in an IPCC report.
“What’s your reason for favouring that extremely uncertain possibility?”
I never favored anything. I have no certainty on that possibility. You, on the other hand, sound like you think know that the probability is low. You are welcome to expound on your deep knowledge of the GCMs. And to convince the IPCC to do the same in their reports.
You, on the other hand, sound like you think know that the probability is low.
i think I get the idea of a pdf, bender, that’s all.
Those pdfs, they are derived how? Ask your daughter if need be.
(That IPCC claims some scenarios “improbable” does not make them so. This is a matter of the correctness of model parameterizations, not politics.)
Tell me, bender, why you reason that low sensitivity is more probable than moderate. I really am interested to know (my daughter’s in Copenhagen, so I can’t ask her to guess at what you might think).
You putting words in my mouth again. I do not “reason climate sensitivity to be low”. I merely ask for clarity on the range of uncertainty on guessed model parameters. The same question I have been asking for four years. You should be asking it too.
Bender, I think we don’t know enough about clouds, ok? I think we should deal with that. Good night. 🙂
Are there no lukewarmers/skeptics/denialists/contrarians willing to call bulls**t on Monckton’s statement about 15 years of cooling? Not even one?
Simon Evans
So inept and obviously untrue that it almost can’t be on purpose. It’s oral, right? Maybe he meant to say no statistically significant warming for 15 years? He claimed that for all observing groups, so he’s still be wrong. But at least not so far wrong as to be… well… like saying grass is purple or something like that.
If he actually lied, and intentionally said there has been statistically significant warming for 15 years, then he’s both liar and a political moron.
JohnV (Comment#27642)
Apparently not – i tried pushing that earlier!Ah well 🙂
not one single one, not one, not one………..
I guess one ends up knowing what is being dealt with. Good night 🙂
Woops – Lucia – just caught your comment. Well, whatever, I think he’s hugely entertaining!
Lucia – just caught your comment, so I exclude you from my last generalisation!
Lucia,
In the interest of presenting an objective take on the climate debate, perhaps you could do a post on Al Gore’s misrepresentations/dubious claims/hypocrisy/inconsistency?
I’ve seen you do several on Monckton, but none on Al.
Andrew
Maybe I can kickstart calling BS on Monckton by calling BS on Gore. I heard that Gore said the temperature at the core of the earth is *millions* of degrees. If he really did say that, I call bulls**t!
See, it’s easy (and fun).
Now who wants to do the same for Monckton’s assertion of 15-years of cooling?
I’m really totally uninterested in Monckton’s opinions and comments on science to the point that I haven’t even read them. But if he asserted there have been 15 consecutive years of recent cooling I’m very happy to say he is wrong.
Simon, that your daughter is a scientist is encouraging. Now answer my second question.
Why, hasn’t it already been done ad nauseum? Has Al said something new and comparably offensive/funny?
Cherry-picking-out bad behavior?
I happen to like Lord Monckton’s style, but I also know that the old adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is so very much the truth. Personalities can be both turn ons or turn offs, it just depends on who is the beholder. While I’ve tried to understand why other people think, feel, and act differently than I do, I try to believe that most turn offs are a result of the diversity of the human condition, and I move on. I am appalled however, when people lie, and I get really miffed when it’s obvious they spin the truth to support a particular agenda. Imo, lying and spin run rampant in (at least American) society.
I am an environmental scientist employed by government. I triple check my data, calculations, and conclusions. I’ll never publically air information and analyses that cannot be duplicated. My conclusions, which can (and have) been used to support public policy decisions, are my own and I am proud of them, and I stand behind them. I believe my personal and professional ethics standards are high, and I take care to live up to them.
I have been subject to smear campaigns of both libel and slander, and I can tell you, I took a big hit. During the campaign that went on for several months, the daily emotional trauma affected my health, as well as my professional reputation. While physically I’ve recovered, and no allegation was (or can be) proven because they were simply not true, I still find evidence of damage to my professional reputation.
These days it seems to be no holds barred when dealing with the environmental issue of anthropogenic climate change. Despite an expertise to get into the fray, I have no desire to suffer fabricated smears again. The best I’ve been able to do is occasionally comment on a blog under an anonymous moniker. That’s one of the reasons why I like Lord Monkton. He’s got a duck’s back, and from what I can tell, he stands behind his analyses, and doesn’t get bothered by character criticisms. I also like his sense of humor.
I am thankful there are charismatic people like Lord Monckton to carry the flag behind efforts to keep governments from adopting what I believe to be a combination of impractical, emotional, reactionary, and selfish policy decisions.
(While I’m on the subject of personalities: Lucia, I love your blog and thank you for the postings and links. How do you find the time? I’m not a Haiku (or poetry) fan, although I totally relate to your Haiku subject matter. Wish I could knit like you. My crochet efforts (few and far between) are easy and practical. I’m female, age in the range of 45 to 50.)
“Has Al said something new and comparably offensive/funny?”
Oliver,
Maybe Lucia will do a post and we’ll find out! 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Al isn’t as entertaining as Chris the viscount.
JohnV,
“Are there no lukewarmers/skeptics/denialists/contrarians willing to call bulls**t on Monckton’s statement about 15 years of cooling? Not even one?”
He missed it by a couple years!!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/adding-apples-and-oranges-to-cherry-picking/
Of course, now there is an argument about SIGNIFICANT. Go for it.
The history of emotive blackmail for moral crusades is a gruesome one. Let me share one from my wife’s family. During the first world war her great grandmother lost all three of her sons, one dying from wounds on his return. Her great grandfather was not conscripted but enlisted after receiving a white feather in their letter box. He also died. After all that his wife suffered a mental breakdown and never recovered.
Sceptism is an essential humanitarian service.
John V
Hey! Great game. I’ll call Mockton on that.
But if we’re going to open it up to Al Gore, we’ll be here all night.
Let’s see what I can come up with.
Henry Waxman
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.html
Sen. Debbie Stabenow
http://community.detnews.com/apps/blogs/henrypayneblog/index.php?blogid=2041
John Kerry
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/28/28climatewire-boxer-kerry-set-to-introduce-climate-bill-in-43844.html
“Al isn’t as entertaining as Chris the viscount.”
Are you sure, Lucia? His (Al’s) Global Warming Poetry send tingles up my leg.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/11/al-gore-recites-global-warming-poem-cnn-reporter
Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning’s celebration
Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups
Tell me you don’t feel some odd and entertaining sensations after reading that. 😉
Andrew
I read the posting. He is quoting people who actually lived through the Nazi occupation of Denmark and said that the current “festivities” bear a striking resemblance to the Hitler Youth rallies. And more than one person apparently says so. Had he simply made this up or put words in people’s mouths, it would be different. But when people who actually lived through it say that this resembles it, in my opinion that is a whole lot different from a Usenet food fight.
Oh, by the way:
“An organization representing the grandest ambitions of climate scientists wants Western nations to spend at least $2.1 billion a year for the next five years — and as much as $60 billion overall during that period — to glean huge troves of still undiscovered climate information from the world’s land, air and seas. ”
Looks like this is Jones’ and Mann’s pot-o-gold they have been striving to create.
stan (Comment#27572)
I agree – Monckton only used the word because the two older members of his audience made the connection.
Anyway “Godwin’s Law” as I read it is a mathematical tautology so long as the probability of that (or any other comparison you like to cherry pick) is non-zero.
Having seen the video, it did remind me of the sheep in animal farm.
But as I recall it was the pigs who were the problem.
Having read the complete Monckton piece and now understanding the context of what he is writing, I totally agree with his position. I have seen the same tactics at presentations at our local university that I have attended ( aggressive agitation/ disruption by green lobby groups) and on a personal level had to attend ‘counselling’ with our campus manager and ‘climate change officer’ ( I teach art at a technical college). I had had the temerity to question misleading information being emailed to all staff by the then newly appointed ‘climate change officer.’ I questioned the veracity of the information being disseminated and also questioned the need for a small technical college to even have a paid ‘climate change officer’ when, for just one example, our college library had had 45% of its book allocation funding cut due to budgetary constraints. Needless to say I was shown the instruments of torture and told to recant as all the above was now institution policy and basically if i wanted further employment ( i am a p/t teacher) I had better get with the program or at least shut up. Monckton has descibed the various layers of creeping green fascism correctly.Those who cannot see this developing fascism are blind to the lessons of history. All is currently on show in Copenhagen.
Not sure I get Godwin’s Law.
If using a frequentist approach, somebody who did an exhaustive study of usenet threads might be able to come up with a distribution relating frequency of Hitler/Nazi references to thread length. But how would they show that it was approaching 1, as opposed to say 0.33?
If you take a pure permutations approach, in which usenet threads are modeled as random strings of length n, you still have the problem of an empirical limit on the length of the usenet thread, in that usenet threads are not actually of unbounded length n; there are all sorts of upper bounds we can apply (e.g., age of the universe, etc.)
So, how exactly does Godwin’s law work?
George Santayana
Anna said:
Thirty three democracies descended into tyranny in the 20th century for failing to uphold constitutional protections against popular demagogues. More than 100 million were killed by their own governments in those tyrannies, compared to 39 million in all wars of the 20th century.
Unless we recognize trends towards tyranny, we will cannot prevent the tyrants. The danger of tyranny is far greater than that of war – or global warming.
Those Monckton quotes actually experienced the tyranny under Hitler. They saw the same evidence today. Denying that evidence puts blinders on that prevent people from seeing those trends.
See Monckton’s warning:
Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
It has been viewed by 2.4 million viewers.
Will we heed the warning of the introduction of tyrannical global government controlled by unelected tyrants (bureaucrats)?
David L. Hagen,
Your comment is right on.
So we need to keep in mind that there are the Imaginary Monsters Under Your Bed and AGW…
…and then there are real problems, like people or groups with too much power, who will often make bad decisions.
Andrew
you guys think Gore & Monckton are funny
How bout this lead IPCC author?
Dr Schnieder is a real peach
In the 1970s Professor Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man-made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of the possibility of a man-made “ice age.†See: Rasool S., & Schneider S.â€Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climateâ€, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: ‘The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.â€
Disagree, Lucia. Godwin’s Law pertains to DISCUSSIONS. Read it again. What happened at the meeting was the termination of discussion by jackbooted thugs without the jackboots. Therefore, Godwin’s Law does not apply.
Whether they are likened to National Socialists or International Socialists doesn’t matter much. There’s not an effective iota of difference. What’s important is that the right of assembly was trampled on by the AGW cryptosocialists. Being indignant about the quaint names they were called is straining at a grape and swallowing a watermelon. This entire thread is a red herring.
Was there an alternative scenario if we did manage to regulate aerosol emissions to prevent such a catastrophe?
i am really surprised by the amount of support that Monckton gets, even on this blog. shouldn t “sceptics” be a little more sceptic about Monckton? a person who is confused about whether he is sitting in the house oof lords or not?
we are dealing with a person who is always wrong and who is taking extreme an extremely liberal approach to the truth.
of course he is misrepresenting this event as well. good that we have video documents of the event: (US Youth Crash Climate Denier Live Webcast in Copenhagen), Monckton shows up at the end of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZw8yF5alkM&feature=player_embedded#
it does not look to me, as if Monckton had been talking to members of the audience, before he made up his mind about those young protestors being nazis.
they don t look like hitler youth to me either. the protest is pretty peaceful, the most aggressive act i can spot on that video is somebody snatching a poster FROM them.
their slogan ” americans for prosperity, americans for green energy” actually makes sense.
please be honest for one moment: does this event really look like how you imagine things under a Nazi occupation?
this is the very reason, why Godwin’s law was invented: to prevent the overuse of the nazi comparison, especially when it doesn t make any sense what so ever.
GISS was originally commissioned to model the atmospheres of the other planets. The ones nearest earth having pretty close to 100% CO2 atmospheres.
Opps, meant to include this in my previous
So it doesn’t seem to matter in which direction climate changes, apparently it is always our fault. And whichever way it is going, if it keeps going in that direction, it will be (obviously) disaster. It seems like those people would have a difficult time with roller coasters at an amusement park because they would initially assume that the coaster will climb forever which will result in their suffocation and freezing to death and that would be followed by their assumption that the coaster will dive forever resulting in their being burned alive in the mantle. They are probably the ones screaming the loudest on the ride. AND they probably believe that it is all their fault!
It must be hard to live like that.
oh, and talking about Dr Schneider, he is a great example as well.
quoting him on the “ice age” scam demonstrates pure dishonesty, by ignoring the “IF” in the most often quoted sentence.
but there was a more recent event, that is relevant to this discussion.
Dr Schneider had film maker Phelim McAleer (“Not Evil Just Wrong’, a title describing the film perfectly) removed from a press conferenced, because he kept asking questions about “climategate”.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#idc-cover
scroll a little down to read the comments. very first comment is shouting fascists, and you will barely find a page of comments without any nazi reference.
now it might look a little extreme, to call McAleer a nazi, for just asking a couple of questions too much, you might argue.
but the funny thing is, they don t call the person disturbing the event “nazi” this time. instead they use the impression for Schneider.
funny folks, those “sceptics”.
crosspatch, you made this claim above:
I read the posting. He is quoting people who actually lived through the Nazi occupation of Denmark and said that the current “festivities†bear a striking resemblance to the Hitler Youth rallies. And more than one person apparently says so. Had he simply made this up or put words in people’s mouths, it would be different.
it was actually false, as the video shows.
http://www.infowars.com/brownshirt-youth-corps-invade-monckton-speech/
it is extremely unlikely, that Monckton had a conversation with the audience, before he uttered that phrase.
even IF those comments from the public are true, they were spoken AFTER Monckton brought up the nazi topic.
———————-
So it doesn’t seem to matter in which direction climate changes, apparently it is always our fault. And whichever way it is going, if it keeps going in that direction, it will be (obviously) disaster.
this of course is false as well.
pollution was a serious problem in the 70s. and the climate effect of the smoke from our industries was only one part of it.
we fought that problem very successfully.
the same will happen to CO2 now.
and it is the same group of people, who were painting catastrophic scenarios about the economic impact of environment action, then and now.
the scientific calculations of environmental impact of our actions were pretty accurate back then, and are again now.
the right wing scare scenarios were completely off back then, and are again now.
Simon refuses to quit when he’s ahead:
“Lucia – just caught your comment, so I exclude you from my last generalisation!”
.
I reject Simon’s “generalisation”. He can’t lump me in within his generalisation because I haven’t commented either way. And I refuse to comment. And I loathe his attempt to generalize. This is called “prejudice”. In some societies it is not tolerated. (JohnV is guilty of same. You can’t assume all readers agree with Monckton when they don’t air an opinion. Adolescent attempts to generalise in this way disgust me.)
sod thinks it’s ok for unelected UN officials to dodge hard questions by calling in enforcements to shut down journalism. Is sod not sick? Watch the video and vote.
Monckton is mad as frogs. And I say that as someone significantly more sceptical about AGW than our esteemed hostess.
I’m perpetually astonished by how popular Monckton is on certain blogs. Fortunately he has little if any traction in the UK, where most people have never heard of him – the right wing contrarians of choice over here are Christopher Booker, Jeremy Clarkson, James Dellingpole, and Richard North, all of whom (even Clarkson!) are considerably less nutty than he is. (Andrew Montford, aka Bishop Hill, is a rising star, but doesn’t yet have much recognition outside the climate blogosphere, though he did give an excellent interview on Radio 4, and his forthcoming book may raise his profile considerably).
windansea:
Read Kaufman et al. 2009 – which was being audited at CA when the Briffa release happened, and then climategate. What is your conclusion? That fossil fuel burning has prevented an ice age? Ask about that at RealClimate and see how far you get.
I reject Simon’s “generalisationâ€. He can’t lump me in within his generalisation because I haven’t commented either way. And I refuse to comment. And I loathe his attempt to generalize. This is called “prejudiceâ€. In some societies it is not tolerated. (JohnV is guilty of same. You can’t assume all readers agree with Monckton when they don’t air an opinion. Adolescent attempts to generalise in this way disgust me.)
sorry, but there simply are no two different opinions on Monckton. there is no different view of him, and it is not a generalisation if you are lumped in with his supporters, when you deny to speak out against him.
these are the facts:
Monckton called for obligatory tests on the whole population for AIDS, and for immediate and permanent isolation.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912110038
this sounds a little similar to concentration camps to me.
the same Monckton is describing a pretty peaceful protest against an anti-science event as a nazi method.
if you cant make up your mind on a position on him, there is something seriously wrong with you.
let us apply your logic to events during the nazi time. so you are against any generalisation? you don t think we should accuse those who remained silent?
it is called “prejustice” if we point out that the silent majority enabled the crimes that were commited during the nazi reign?
you want to rewrite history?
——————–
sod thinks it’s ok for unelected UN officials to dodge hard questions by calling in enforcements to shut down journalism. Is sod not sick? Watch the video and vote.
you are seriously misinterpreting what i said. perhaps you could reread my statement again?!?
Lucia: surely surely you must be having doubts about your AGW? Anyway you are one of the few that I would believe (AGW) because of your honesty and openness
Honestly guys/gals when you think of it.. Isn’t the whole concept absolutely ridiculous? has your local weather pattern chnaged since you were 3 years of age?
Hansen started it with his comments about coal/death trains and coal execs being charged with crimes against humanity. But then this has possibly lead to Hansen being sidelined for going off the rails.
One thing the Nazi’s did do was embrace the media and use that as part of their propaganda campaigning. This indoctrination allowed many ordinary German (and other) people to do extraordinary things in the belief that they were right. Consensus was on their side, there were even claims of scientific proof of German natural superiority. Post war, the spell was broken and the con exposed.
Media unfortunately borrowed a lot of the tricks. Establish consensus, appeal to the emotion, supress inconvenient truths, attack your critics. These tactics are clearly used by both sides because the psychology works.
Ultimately the truth should prevail. What is the data, what does it show. Fortunately we have something new to assist in an independent media, with blogs like this where people can (hopefully) debate the science rationally.
Just a joke but SOD = SOD LOL
Lucia, I agree with you. Accusations of nazism are generally unwarranted and counterproductive. The recipient is offended and not persuaded. As a leaner in the sceptical direction I resent terms like denialism with its holocaust connotations. But if I don’t like it, I accept that I shouldn’t use such invective on others.
The one exception is people who explicitly advocate views that are literally eco-fascist. For example, Lynn White Jr the famous radical eco-theologian wrote a piece in 1978 called ‘The Future Of Compassion’ (Ecumenical Review 30:99). He seriously entertains the idea that a population-culling plague like the black death might be best for our planet. Failing that, we should massively cull ourselves by methods including abortion aimed especially at the genetically abnormal who place too much strain on the planet’s resources. To call this eco-fascism is I suggest not hyperbolic at all, and a link to nazism is quite legitimate. I would say the same for Peter Singer who combines a rigorist animal-rights thesis with the view that ‘abnormal’ babies may be killed after birth (see his Practical Ethics, 1979, ch.4). Declaration of interest: I was an abnormal baby. Again Singer’s view does duplicate nazi practices. The bizarre thing is that Singer’s own family were touched by the holocaust. Go figure. However, to be fair, most of the Copenhagen demonstrators are probably not in this league. They just hold different beliefs about strong AGW than me. I do think such people are apt to be zealots for their cause though.
“it is not a generalisation if you are lumped in with his supporters, when you deny to speak out against him”
.
watch out folks, here comes mccarthy in sod’s clothing. the irony is that as wrong as monckton may be, the more that sod talks, the more right monckton becomes.
.
and this is how the science-based case for AGW ends: the kooks take over and turn it into a religion so the facts no longer matter.
sod (Comment#27716) December 12th, 2009 at 3:35 am
“sorry, but there simply are no two different opinions on Monckton. there is no different view of him, and it is not a generalisation if you are lumped in with his supporters, when you deny to speak out against him.”
Him=Monckton
Him=AlGore
And are you one of the supporters of a deluded “20m high water coming to drown the word” prophet? Or have you spoken out against him?
The Manichean dilemma of “whoever is not with us is against us” serves what? Certainly not scientific inquiry, because such stuff is way off any science.
watch out folks, here comes mccarthy in sod’s clothing. the irony is that as wrong as monckton may be, the more that sod talks, the more right monckton becomes.
so by pointing out Monckton’s plans about handling AIDS, i make him more right?
pretty weird logic.
and this is how the science-based case for AGW ends: the kooks take over and turn it into a religion so the facts no longer matter.
the facts of this case are simple: Monckton is wrong on everything, starting with AIDS, the 15 year cooling claim and any similarity between this event and anything that the nazis did.
even his reporting of the whole event is wrong, as he prefers to leave out the fact, that he was the one making the connection to the nazis first.
the real story is the complete opposite of what he is telling us. people making the nazi connection AFTER he brought up that subject is barely worth a notice…
Him=Monckton
Him=AlGore
And are you one of the supporters of a deluded “20m high water coming to drown the word†prophet? Or have you spoken out against him?
look anna, you got the unit wrong on that one. Gore says, that a 20ft increase could happen IF greenland melts. and that claim is true.
i disagree with Gore on some things, but he gets the basics right. the difference to Monckton is massive. he gets everything wrong.
the comparison is funny though. al Gore was the vice president of the USA. Monckton claims to have a seat in the house of lords…
i am curious: what did Gore say, that is similar to the Monckton claims about HIV?
Speaking as an former citizen of a communist – ruled country:
Yes, I do have a problem with people (young or otherwise) who disturb the meetings of their ideological opponents.
I spent most of my life in a system where only one point of view was deemed correct.
This led only to government lying to themselves and to citizens, hiding the economical problems (because the “socialism” can’t have any), disregarding the social problems (because the “socialism” can’t have any). But without accepting, that there are problems and discrepancies, you can’t effectively solve them.
And that is my problem with the current politics and approach – it starts to resemble our former regime. Doubts about the lore of AGW? CAll them deiners and shills. Pointing problems with immigration? Call them xenophobes and racists.
Should I continue? Better not. It is all too familiar to me.
sod (Comment#27729) December 12th, 2009 at 7:06 am
“i am curious: what did Gore say, that is similar to the Monckton claims about HIV?”
For me, the fact that he has economic interests in selling hot air CO2 and making a big movie trying to stampede the western world into committing economic hara kiri is much worse than isolating AIDs victims suggested at a time when there was a lot of fear and not enough knowledge about it(1987 American Spectator article (available here) in which Lord Christopher Monckton –).
Monckton exaggerates, but is not wrong: the temperatures are in stasis, as they would be since most probably we are on another wiggle of the Holocene downslide to the next ice age. Al Gore is wrong in all his prophecies of doom ( but right in shoving in the dough from CO2 cap and trade in the EU).
“al Gore was the vice president of the USA”
sod,
I think you need to start thinking about this differently. It doesn’t matter if Al was the Queen of Hearts. He was a political opportunist many years before he even became a candidate for VP or pres. He was filtered to the top of the criminal Democratic Party. He’s a liar and a hypocrite. It doesn’t matter what he has right and what he has wrong. He needs to be kept away from any from any influtential or authoritative position. He’s what is wrong with politics today. He’s the poster child.
Andrew
If we accept that historical patterns exist and it’s useful to recognise them, it’s worth keeping in mind that WW2 was only the action of ending a tyrannical movement. If there is any similarity between nazism and the AGW group it must be looked for in events taking place before a civilised society acts to make an ending to any such group. It could be said that the real tragedy in the first half of the last century was the failure of society to organise itself in such a way that the ‘ending’ would not have become a tragic necessity. And part of that organising would have been to value, protect and defend the structures the society lives by.
Generally, attempted comparisons of the nazi group with the AGW group fail because the comparison focusses (perhaps unavoidably) on the the actions of the first group during the 6 year period of its ending. If a comparison is to stick – and if making a comparison is to have any value for civilised society – it must concentrate on the actions of the first group BEFORE the period of its ending became a priority. And the purpose of seeking a comparison is to avoid a repeat of such an catastrophic ending (and the undoubted horrors it would contain) by disempowering the second group beforehand so that it is contained by, and accepts its existence within, the protected structures the society lives by.
Youth has always, and will always, challenge these structures – it is their way of testing them to ensure they can be safely lived-by and therefore surrendered to (most of us arrive at the conclusion that our social space provides a more useful and rewarding life that an idealised one). It is a paradox – completely lost on youth – that it must largely fail in its testing in order to succeed in putting aside idealism and getting on with life. If society is too weak to protect its structures, it yields to these tests – or even starts colluding in them – and that’s when the problems… and the comparisons… begin.
At least here in Germany, most if not all “Greenies” are openly sympathetic with socialist ideas. Many former GDR socialists and communists have found a new home in Green activist groups, and Green/Red coalitions have been the rule rather than the exception. The only thing that (as it seems) too many people forget is that Nazism is shorthand for National Socialism – the main difference being that Marx’ original “Proletariate” was replaced by the “Aryan Fatherland” as the object to worship and fight for, which has now in turns been replaced by “Mother Earth” or “World Climate”. Large parts of Europe have suffered under Socialist rule twice already – Hitler’s brownshirts 1933-1945 and the Reds 1945-1990 – and I fully agree with Monckton that it is worrying to see how the same ugly thing in yet another color tries to gain power yet again.
Meanwhile Phelim McAleer “politely” patrols to discover boundaries:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17844
Monckton is much the same as Gore, but far less malign.
sod, your fundamentalism is repulsive. you are blind to your mccarthyism and your prejudice. you are precisely the enemy monckton says should be feared. you justify his cause. you are blind to this irony. you disgust me.
bender:
I wasn’t asking anyone to call BS on Monckton in general. Just on his statement about statistically significant cooling over 15 years. You can think he’s the best guy in the world but still call BS on his mistakes. In fact if you’re being honest and objective you have to call BS on his mistakes.
JohnV,
“statistically significant cooling over 15 years”
I think this is a meaningless statement. You can replace ‘cooling’ with warming and get the same meaning.
How do you JohnV, know this statement about cooling is true or false? Who is it true for, and why?
Andrew
I see the NYtimes is asking for questions for reporters over at dot earth – to be answered on video early next week. I must think up something pithy.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
John V,
I don’t proclaim anything. I’ve never read the guy and I refuse to. So stop forcing your judgements on people who refuse to take part in your jury duty.
Sod,
I don’t know Monckton’s precise quote and the context of his HIV comment. Since we’re being told these days that context is everything, I can’t comment unless you can provide me with a direct quote in context. Based on recent behavior, I have no reason to doubt it was indeed a typical over-the-top comment that he’s become well-known for. It appears to be from the 80s, when Al Gore was on a vendetta about song lyrics, still bragging about being a tobacco farmer, and if I’m not mistaken, still pro-life. Regardless of how you feel about those issues, ol’ Al has found his previous positions to be “inconvenient” as he’s worked his way up the Democratic political ladder and courted the contributions of rich libs in Hollywood. So if you’re going to do handstands about Monckton’s views in the 80s, I guess we need to look at what Al was saying back then too. Proper context, you know.
Be that as it may, sure, Monckton is a windbag. So is Al. They are both in the category of “often wrong, never uncertain”.
But, and this is a big but, when Monckton is wrong, he’s more a victim of his overblown rhetoric. Al, however, is also frequently hypocritical.
Do we all believe that Al Gore honestly thinks the world is in peril and CO2 is a serious problem requiring immediate and agressive action? Do we believe he’s felt that way for 20 years?
Then what are we to make of this?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec00/oil_9-21.html
Is that the way to hold down CO2 emissions? Oh, that’s right, he was in the middle of a campaign then.
So, you’re a tobacco farmer? “I’m one of you!” Need cheap gas in your car? “I’m here to help!” Trying to sell that condo near the waterline in San Francisco? “Happy to take that off your hands!”
And how honest has ol’ Al been about when Greenland’s ice is supposed to melt?
bender:
I’m not asking you or anyone to say anything about Monckton himself. I simply asked whether his statement was true. Judgements? Jury duty? What are you talking about?
If Monckton said there has been statistically significant cooling for the last 15 years, was he right or wrong? If I said there was statistically significant warming for the last 9 years, would I be right or wrong?
I know you have issues with me and I’m ok with that. But just answer a simple question.
—
Andrew_KY:
Is it really worth all this effort to avoid saying that Monckton was wrong about one thing in a passing comment? If you are not permitted to call out honest mistakes by a person, then you are not being scientific and definitely not being skeptical.
Are you not able to question anything that Monckton says? Even a simple mistake that he made in a conversation? Why is that?
This is completely off topic, but I thought it would interest the people here. The internet satirist Iowahawk apparently knows a thing or two about statistics, and has created an OOcalc based statistical model to reproduce the CRU results. This guy’s normally a joker, but this looks serious and legit. Comments?
sod, your fundamentalism is repulsive. you are blind to your mccarthyism and your prejudice. you are precisely the enemy monckton says should be feared. you justify his cause. you are blind to this irony. you disgust me.
extremely weird. you accuse me of similar things like what happened during the McCarthy era? absurd.
disgusted by me, not by Monckton? interesting!
just to remind you: you are posting in a topic about Monckton. what you say, is said in that context.
a lot of comments by others are really strange as well. nazis being socialists? absurd. how can a “skeptic” come to this conclusion?
————————
talking points have picked up the story about the Monckton event. (they ignore him, though)
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/tea-party-goader-gets-heckled—-just-like-his-group-urged-followers-to-do-to-congressmen.php?ref=fpb
their interesting observation: americans for prosperity is advocating exactly this method, to disturb democratic townhall meetings. (occasionally right wingers also bring guns..)
they don t like the use of their own tactic against them. funny, eh?
Peter S, good comments.
JohnV, seems pointless point scoring. Several of us including Lucia acknowledged the obvious long ago and, like bender, have little interest in non-scientists’ scientific proclamations which almost always lack sufficient background knowledge to be of any consequence.
Simon Evans, I am still waiting to hear whether the squadrons of impassioned youth including your scientific daughter are campaigning for human rights to be extended or compulsorily contracted.
Alan Wilkinson:
It’s not about point-scoring. Monckton making a simple mistake in conversation means nothing at all. I would understand if people just ignored my request to call it out as a mistake. But for some reason a few people actively refuse to call him on his mistakes. That’s the real point.
JohnV, people do all sorts of silly things. Life’s too short to worry about them.
JohnV
Back to the topic of the thread.
See vid at : Hundreds Held During Climate Change Protest 7:35pm UK, Saturday December 12, 2009
Do you consider this activity to be”democratic debate” or facism?
It is time to recognize and deal with climategate and blatant violence in the name of caring for “mother earth”. Both are destructive to civil society and science.
There is a difference between “Nazi” and “Hitler Youth”. For Nazi, watch the film “Schindler’s list”, think Auschwitz and World War II. For Hitler Youth, see “Cabaret” (the scene where the Hitler Youth are singing about the future). You had to apply to be a Nationalsozialist, but it was compulsory for a young German to be in the HY.
Having visited Auschwitz I would not compare people today with mass murderers; but I understand that old Danes see the parallels to the German occupation of their country.
The decline in temperature (according to CRU) since 1998 is not statistically significant; and since it has not yet been proven that CRU cheat with the numbers as GISS does, I would say: Temperature has been constant since 1998.
But otherwise Monckton is extremely well informed about climate.
David L. Hagen:
I disagree with lumping “climategate and blatant violence” together.
.
I think that blatant violence must be condemned, peaceful protesting and freedom of speech must be supported, and civil disobedience is a gray area.
.
I doubt that the rioting protesters (“members of militant groups from northern Europe known as Black Blocs”) were the same American kids that Monckton called Hitler Youth.
Those that ignore history are condemned to repeat it, as Peter S points out. The comparison isn’t really about what the Nazi’s did after seizing power, but how they managed to seize power. That was a slow hearts and minds programme that seemed reasonable and played on people’s hopes and fears. We again have orchestrated rent-a-mobs that believe they’re doing the right thing, because that’s what they’ve been told. And what better thing is there to do than ‘save the planet’.
Facts don’t matter, beliefs do. There’s an old acronym for dealing with useful idiots, Money, Ideology, Conscience and Ego. The money behind climate change probably understands this. There’s a lot of money to be made after all, but the sceptics are all funded by big oil in some plan to do.. something, even though ‘big oil’ is likely to be a beneficiary either way. The rest are perhaps neatly demonstrated by the parrot fashioned repeating of the ‘peerreviewedliterature’ in the Monckton vs malleable youth video.
Lucia, the title of this post made me ignore it, then I happened to see the video from an unrelated source. I am sorry, but those silver spoon infants are the problem. A collection of morons born in privilege, not one with a math or science course passed, perhaps Hitler youth is an unfortunate turn of phrase, how about criminally stupid?
I read MOB’s comments, and think his description accurate, both historically and momentarily. Public policy discussion is at risk.
JohnV (Comment#27783)
December 12th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
And just what makes you think that American kids can’t also be Hitler Youth? In the late 30’s Nazism had a good toe-hold here in America – both Errol Flynn, the actor, and Charles Linbergh were Nazi sympathizers in the pre-war years. The Great T.E. Lawrence, the “Lawrence of Arabia” subject was disposed to take Germany’s part against France in the 30’s.
Think about this: both far-right republicans and far-left democrats have endorsed AGW; Big Businesses, including GE, Enron and Gulf oil have endorsed AGW; many University departments and academic professional associations (even if they know doodly-squat about climate science) have endorsed AGW. Al Gore runs “climate camps” (think of the Hitler Jugend alternative to international Boy Scouts).
We are seeing the very model of fascism reproduced in the 21st century, and people think it is impolite to point it out? Maybe we should think in terms of “statism”. For any one here over 40, think about what you could do in your twenties that you can’t do now: drive with your seat-bet unbuckled? Sitting on the beach after 10:00 p.m.? MaKe a LIST.
The comparison isn’t really about what the Nazi’s did after seizing power, but how they managed to seize power.
no. the title of the Monckton post is “Hitler Youth in Denmark – again”
you can t get really further away from “how they seized power”
We again have orchestrated rent-a-mobs that believe they’re doing the right thing, because that’s what they’ve been told. And what better thing is there to do than ’save the planet’.
Facts don’t matter, beliefs do.
the facts are peer reviewed articles. the believes in this topic, are on your side of the discussion…
Do you consider this activity to beâ€democratic debate†or facism?
the black block is very different from the protest against Monckton. but even the black clock is NOT fascist. the majority of them is leftish, most are anarchists, some are completely apolitical. not fascist.
. I am sorry, but those silver spoon infants are the problem. A collection of morons born in privilege, not one with a math or science course passed, perhaps Hitler youth is an unfortunate turn of phrase, how about criminally stupid?
i am glad that you are able to tell the intelligence of people, from the picture of a crowd. you also can identify their subjects of study from a 2 min video clip.
and i am accused of “generalisation”, because i point out that people take a position, when they comment on a Monckton topic. even if they try to avoid that.
this is a typical “skeptic” approach. a sequence of pictures is enough, to judge those youth as “criminally stupid”.
.
the massive amount of material that we have to judge Monckton, gets ignored. i smell some minor bias folks…
“i smell some minor bias”
.
hey mcarthy, you can’t witchhunt with your nose up your ass
What, still no comments on the Kaufman paper? I smell some bias.
Sod:
A weekly shower would do wonders for your sense of smell.
HAH!!! Comparing people to fascists and Hitler?? PIKERS!!
I liked John Kerry comparing our soldiers to Genghis Khan during the Winter Soldier Hearings in the 70’S!!!
Personally I would use Mao Tse Tung!! Only problem is, our leftist educational system has left people so history deficient I usually get blank stares!!
Sod,
YOU are talking about BIAS????
Get over it guys its over.. MSM have copped on now. If I was anyway involved I would get out now…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html
Lucia what is your view on the now on obvious Fraud? I don’t think UEA will recover (that is the WHOLE University, because now apparently the Vice-Chancellor was involved see emails). Penn State should consider this very very carefully as well. I would not send my children to study to any of these institutions under these conditions and would not submit any work to be published in Nature or Science until they withdraw these papers. BTW: writer has Published 27 articles in refereed journals have 2 Masters and PhD (science) degrees
BTW All data is contaminated by “adjustments” that includes NASA, NSCD etc. so that excuse will no longer hold. The Economist tried to block that one it did not work
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
sod: “Facts don’t matter, beliefs do.
the facts are peer reviewed articles. the believes in this topic, are on your side of the discussion…”
Quite wrong. Science is the study and organisation of facts. Predictions of future scenarios, assignment of cause and effect, evaluation of options and costs, go beyond science into the sphere of beliefs (and scepticism of those beliefs).
Both sides have beliefs. Only the future will determine which were valid.
Re Sod-
Facts don’t matter, beliefs do.
the facts are peer reviewed articles. the believes in this topic, are on your side of the discussion…
—
Thank you for making my point. You believe peer reviewed articles are facts, rather than opinions because this is what you’ve been told to believe. This despite the CRU mails showing systematic attempts to subvert the peer review process. Despite the usual scientific process requiring data and methods being made available so facts can be verified and results reproduced. Most of the people marching and rioting in Copenhagen probably haven’t read the IPCC reports, or the original papers in those reports, or the copies of the treaties. They don’t need to because they believe they’re doing the right thing and have been told what to believe by a well run and highly funded PR campaign.
In comment #27723 I dissociated myself from Monckton over his use of the Nazi label to criticise his opponents. But having seen the thuggish attempts by some demonstrators to silence him, I have to admit there is something to be said for Monckton. Those extremist demonstrators certainly deserve to be called something unflattering – totalitarian in tendency at the least.
In the future, everyone will be Hitler for 15 minutes.
Ah here you are sod. I wondered where you had run to after fawning over GG’s adjustment analysis, a little early, and then watching Roman M tear it to pieces. Look on the bright side, Steig got it in the neck as well. you are in good? company.
Media Matters has attacked Lord Monckton. This is the reply I’ve posted to them:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/truthmatterstoo.html
Alan Wilkinson (Comment#27765) December 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Simon Evans, I am still waiting to hear whether the squadrons of impassioned youth including your scientific daughter are campaigning for human rights to be extended or compulsorily contracted.
Do you mean the right to be protected from harm or the ‘right’ to pursue personal without responsibility for the consequences to others?
You know…. you look at what those kids did. It does occur to you that some grownup put them up to it. What were they doing over there? They look american. Did their parents all buy them plane tickets to get over there? Anyone asking questions about the kids?
Robert E. Phelan:
I didn’t say American kids can’t be Hitler Youth. I said American kids can’t be European kids. That seems pretty obvious.
But having seen the thuggish attempts by some demonstrators to silence him, I have to admit there is something to be said for Monckton. Those extremist demonstrators certainly deserve to be called something unflattering – totalitarian in tendency at the least.
Moncton gets quite the coverage for his ridiculous views. I imagine that the demonstrators in question believe their actions are their only means to get the same kind of attention.
Reading his diatribe was quite nausea-inducing. Oh, talk about rhetoric!
young people politicized and indoctrinated by the State
the Hitler-Jugend, part of a very large, lavishly-funded delegation of jack-trainered, eco-Fascist goons probably paid for by taxpayers somewhere, leapt up to the podium and began a zombie-like, keening chant.
He then wrote that the “squad” “marched” out without further incident…
My goodness! Shocking! Imagine young people protesting in such a manner.
It will be interesting to see how history judges this conflict.
Simon, there is no right to be protected from harm. Otherwise Darwin could not have made his discoveries and most certainly you and I would not be here.
Your apparent delusion that there is such a right leads directly to totalitarianism, since some possibility of harm can always be found to justify ever greater central controls over individuals.
However there is no doubt that the money completely wasted on futile climate change interventions could have benefited very many millions of people had it been better spent and that the direct harm to many people caused by such idiocy as biofuels and the like has already far outweighed the miniscule if any benefits.
When your side cannot maintain a scientific argument, you attack a political opponent.
Now you may not understand your own behavior, but others do.
Andrew
Oh, the irony! It burns us.
Greenaway, it would help us understand your nausea if you pinpointed which part of Monckton’s statement you quoted you believe is incorrect? It seems fairly accurate to me on first glance.
It seems fairly accurate to me on first glance.
That says it all, doesn’t it? Oops. Let me rephrase that…
If you think that Moncton is being accurate, then I question your judgement. Just a quick review of his language tells volumes. Inflammatory, exaggerated — not to mention Godwin’s Law being invoked.
Hi there,
I tried to google something about what the role of the hitler youth was in Copenhagen back at the Nazi take over.
I wasn’t successful, but I found this:
http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2009/10/11/video-a-former-hitler-youth-warns-america/
(filmed way before the incidence this week)
You can substitute a few words and then see parallels in how science is ignored and skeptics are seen badly by some fanatics.
Wasn’t there an article at RC discussing legal consequences of being a denier?
Having said that, I must also clearly distance myself from that comparison as it only stands for the very first impression.
The Nazi ideology was pure evil and neglected the value of human live and many other things. Also the treatments of Nazi enemies was much worse than the interuption of some speech.
There is no real comparison to these brainwashed youngsters trying to save to world.
Moncktown really hit the buttom, which is sad, because beside that he is sometimes not precise and tends to go over the top, sometimes he is actually worth listening to and his outrage damages not only him but also the science.
LoN
Alan Wilkinson (Comment#27856) December 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Simon, there is no right to be protected from harm
Well, there were principles afoot when people died fighting the Nazis to protect others from harm.
Your comments are deeply digusting, disgraceful and insulting to those who died in that cause. I have nothing else to say to you.
Simon,
People died fighting nazis not because of the right to be protected from harm. There were principles and interests that were worth protecting and that was why peoples and nations fought to death.
Back to Monckton’s remark: the behavior demonstrated by the “idealistic youth” was thuggish and in the best traditions of brown, red or green fascism. Consequently, comparing this behavior to hitler youth is not that big a stretch for a political polemicist.
JohnV,
I’ve already criticized Monckton for making an utterly meaningless statement. When I can determine he is lying to get over on someone (like Big Al does) I’ll call him a liar.
Andrew
Simon, that comment’s such complete twaddle I agree there is little point in further discussion. Yes, we attempt to identify harm and minimise it. But much harm still happens despite our efforts and sometimes because of them. There is no “right” to be protected from harm and inevitably in your life harm will befall you and yours.
Greenaway, so no answer? You may not Monkton’s words but in this case he nailed the facts.
AnnaV and EW .
.
Yes I also think that US commenters don’t have the experience European have and that’s why they are bound to interpret the same facts very differently .
For Europeans saying National Socialist or Communist means basically the same thing – totalitarian movements that we have tested and rejected so that the rest of the world doesn’t need to redo the horrible experiences again .
.
It is obvious that the eco-activists share a very great number of features with both National Socialists and Communists .
Case in point even if it had not made the way in the US media (what doesn’t mean that it is not important) .
Last week disguised Greenpeace members (one girl pretended being pregnant and hid the propaganda material on her belly) penetrated the French parliament and disrupted the sitting to get media coverage for their views
In France this is a criminal offense since the infamous days in the 18th century when armed revolutionary thugs threatened elected representatives to change their votes .
One member of the parliament had spoken of “quasi fascist behaviour patterns” .
Of course the analogy is perfectly correct – using violent and criminal means with the target to disrupt democracy and further the propaganda for an ideological (here environmentalist) agenda , is clearly a [fill in your favourite totalitarian regime] behaviour .
Of course the 5 Green Party members of the Parliament have APPLAUDED the criminal act what also speaks tomes about the respect they have for law …
.
So yes I think you are right . Hitler is a red herring . The point is whether these eco-activists use totalitarian methods or not and here the answer is clearly that they do .
The kind of historical totalitarism one uses as analogy is clearly irrelevant .
V.Klaus , the Czech President prefers to compare the eco-activists to the communists because it comes more naturally to him . For the french parliament member it was fascists and for Lord Monckton it appears to be national socialists . Not that it really matters .
Tom Vonk,
I don’t give a damn about people calling their opponents or their views Nazi or Commie, but I care a lot about free speech issue. Because either you have one or you don’t. I just remember a slogan from 50’s coined by Commies: “No freedom for the enemies of Freedom”. And what constituted this freedom and who were the enemies? Party decided, so there.
Of course, freedom of speech means also that people with views that are unpleasant or offending get heard and this is apparently a big problem for current West, which seems to be governed by the eleventh commandment of political correctness “Thou Shalt Not Offend”. Which seems only to cause people and groups to search for more and more words and actions to be rightfully offended by.
And one more quote from source I’ve forgotten (maybe someone will help me). It says basically that it is very easy to commit the worst crimes if one is believing that it must be done for a high and noble cause. The nobler the cause seems, the more repulsive crimes…
And is there any cause nobler than saving the planet?
Lord Monkton may have made the comparison in the heat of the moment, and possibly inappropriately, but my problem is with Godwin’s Law itself. I think it should only be applied when the reference to Nazism is clearly hyperbole and frivolous. Otherwise, it simply sets up another instance of politically correct speech, in which this is another reference that must be avoided no matter whether it is appropriate or not. There are certainly valid historical comparisons to the Hitler Jungen. If we turn it into a petty “Law” akin to “Six degrees from Kevin Bacon” then we set ourselves up to repeat the horrible mistakes of the past. Read Maria Von Trapp’s account of the indoctrination of the school children in Austria. And then think about AIT being shown in schools as factual evidence of AGW.
So, were the US healthcare protestors disrupting town hall meetings, shouting down others and bringing meetings to an end fascists? Totalitarians?
Somehow I’m guessing that the use of hate terms works in only one direction.
Arguably a defining moment in the failure of British Fascism, the Battle of Cable Street –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5405598.stm
“With the police unable to prevail, the Blackshirts were ordered to turn back. To those who fought it was Britain’s stand against a doctrine that cast a dark shadow over Europe.”
“So, were the US healthcare protestors disrupting town hall meetings, shouting down others and bringing meetings to an end fascists? Totalitarians? ”
Simon,
There is a difference between people with very little or no political power protesting against the representative of an authority with great power…
…and people acting out on behalf of the powerful to stifle any opposition to the powerful authority.
Andrew
Andrew,
Can you explain to me how “people acting out on behalf of the powerful” are getting kettled in the freezing streets for hours with no toilet or medical facilities before being arrested? The forces of the state are rather obviously deployed against the protestors!
(And that’s putting aside the obvious matter that health care protests do also represent the interests of those with significant political power. I think they’ve basically got the right to protest though, and I’m not using hate terms against them because I disagree with them!).
Simon,
Observe in each case what the protesters want. Do they want a powerful authority to act? Do the protesters and the authority’s goals align? or do they oppose a powerful authority’s actions?
Andrew
Tom Vonk, lucia,
Have you seen William Schaffer’s comments on the state of climate modeling?
This isn’t directly aimed at you, Simon, but a thing I’ve noticed about some climate bloggers and some climate blog commenters…
They can recite and opine on endless bytes of climate-related information and hopelessly scrutinize them beyond reasonability,
but when it comes to politics, these same people couldn’t analyze their way out of a paper bag.
Andrew
Simon,
Being a loud, disruptive protest group does not necessarily warrant the comparison to the Hitler Youth. But, being so fervently, religiously devoted to an unreasoning cause that you are willing to obstruct the rights of others (not to mention, put up with the privations you mention just for the privilege of being associated with the cause) might be worthy of the comparison. I doubt the Lord MoB was wrong when he pointed out the ignorance of the protestors with regard to the science of AGW. Most of them probably just have to know that they support it, not why.
Andrew,
If I am to generalise about those whom I know of engaged in protesting, I would say that their views very much do not align with proposed government policies (just as Jim Hansen’s views do not align with proposed U.S. or Copenhagen policies). Most protest in the UK has been directed against airport and coal-fired generation development, initiatives hitherto supported by government. Protestors are acting against what they consider to be inadequate responses, or really responses that are fundamentally compromised.
Tamara,
Being a loud, disruptive protest group does not necessarily warrant the comparison to the Hitler Youth. But, being so fervently, religiously devoted to an unreasoning cause that you are willing to obstruct the rights of others…
You mean as healthcare protestors have obstructed the rights of others to speak? –
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/07/health.care.scuffles/index.html
Monckton’s meeting was interrupted. There was no violence – in fact what I’ve seen of it compared to some U.S. town hall meetings suggests the latter as being far more aggressive occasions! Yet you’ve decided they should be compared to ‘Hitler Youth’ whilst other protestors should not. Yup, that was exactly my point.
not to mention, put up with the privations you mention just for the privilege of being associated with the cause
So the fact that people are prepared to take on the consequences of standing up for what they believe to be right makes them Nazis?
I doubt the Lord MoB was wrong when he pointed out the ignorance of the protestors with regard to the science of AGW.
Would that be the same Lord Monckton who declared a fifteen year significant cooling trend whilst telling them they didn’t know anything about the science?
You can ‘doubt’ whatever you choose to, I’m sure you will. I doubt that you have any knowledge of what you’re talking about – how many climate activists have you ever spoken to? What do you know about their scientific education? Monckton read Classics at University, btw.
Simon Evans:
In fairness, Monckton probably just made a simple error about the statistically significant cooling trend. There are many things you can hold against him, but probably not that.
Simon,
You are the one who attempted to portray health care protesters as potential totalitarians. I am trying to explain to you why they are not.
Some Big Governmental Authorities want political action on climate change. There are protesters who are attempting to advance this governmental action by stifling opponents. They want government to reach farther.
Health care protesters oppose the Big Governmental Authority on the issue of health care. These people are different from the climate protesters, because they think government is overreaching.
Andrew
You are the one who attempted to portray health care protesters as potential totalitarians.
No I didn’t – I pointed out the obvious fact that you can’t call people totalitarians/Hitlwer Youth/whatever simply because they’re disruptive! Although, evidently it’s actually fine to use whatever hate words you like so long as protesters are disruptive and hold different views to you, so it has become clear.
Simon,
Don’t forget the part about Advocating Powerful Gov’t Action vs. Opposing Powerful Gov’t Action.
You seem to have left that fundamental part out of your last comment. Simple oversight, I’m confident. 😉
Andrew
Simon,
from the article about the memorable Cable Street you quoted, another thing caught my eye:
… and now where once Jew and Irish Catholic lived cheek by jowl, the streets are filled with Bangladeshis.
Simon–
Assuming this is happening a lot, my guess is the size of the Danish police force is inadequate relative to the number of protestors the Danes consider to be mis-behaving. It’s taking them this long to book the protestors.
That said, I’m not familiar with Danish law, so I don’t have any idea what the protestors’s legal rights are. But either way, how they are being treated really tells us very little about “the powerful” in general. It all depends on who you consider to be “the powerful” and what it is they have the power to do. Historic incident of “the powerful” not only permitting mistreatment of their pawns, but encouraging it, are not unprecedented.
Bender– Which William Schaffer comments? And where?
JohnV-
That’s what I suspect. It’s in a video, and it’s quite likely he just mis-spoke. The students didn’t know enough to actually correct him. Had he been corrected, he probably would have blinked, said, “Did I say that?!” No, I meant ….”. The correction might still have been wrong, but I doubt he would claim statistically significant cooling over a time span where the linear trend fit to data is positive (i.e. warming.)
He also doesn’t repeat the “statistically significant cooling since 95 claims”, so I suspect he just bungled on that one.
As I am Greek and based in Greece I am not clear about Town Hall Meetings. If, as the name says, they are the expression of the democratic representation of the town where audiences are invited and expected to contribute to the decisions, disruptive behavior might be considered immature, but within the rights of the citizens.
( even in parliaments there have been fist fights).
Interrupting a presentation is another thing, and shows disrespect for the rights of others to congregate and have free speech . That is the totalitarian part .
I want to propose Anna’s law: whenever fanaticism takes over a crowd of people and makes them move in lockstep, it is inevitable that either communist or fascist or nazi similarities will be used.
JohnV (Comment#27915)
I’m not so sure it was a simple error on his part. I know it’s wrong, of course, but I’d guess this is his take on it –
“Until the SPPI began producing its Monthly CO2 Reports, which included temperature graphs showing the startling discrepancy between what the UN’s climate panel had predicted and what the real-world data showed, very few knew that global temperatures had not risen for 15 years and had been on a falling trend for 9 years. The scientists were deliberately not telling anyone.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
This is, of course, from a document where he refers to the GISS US temperature record as “global”, so one remains aware of his imaginative approach to science! 😉
Simon–
The stuff you quote is different from what he said on the youtube video. Specifically “had not risen for 15 years ” is a different statement from “showed a statistically significant decline”.
So, I suspect what he meant to say was “there is no statistically significant increase in temperatures over 15 years”. This is a point that might be argued. The claim involves cherrypicking choice of observations, picking a method of estimating uncertainty intervals, blah, blah, blah. But it’s not flat out, totally completely wrong.
But what he said instead was there is a statistically significant decline. This is totally wrong. You can’t have a statistically significant decline unless there is a decline. And the temperatures rose over 15 years. The only question is: Is the rise enough to be called “statistially significant?”
So…since you found the quote he does constantly advance, I’m sure he misspoke.
Andrew_KY,
Advocating powerful government action doesn’t make you a fascist. Going to war in Iraq was a powerful government action, don’t you think? Were those who protested against that not-fascists? If the same person then protests in respect of climate change do they then become a fascist because you consider that what they want is in line with what governments want (it’s not really, but never mind)? This makes no sense, Andrew.
Lucia,
my guess is the size of the Danish police force is inadequate relative to the number of protestors the Danes consider to be mis-behaving. It’s taking them this long to book the protestors.
But on the weekend they arrested 1,000 then only booked 13 of those! It really isn’t the case that the sections of the crowd getting ‘kettled’ are engaged in violence/misbehaving (I could link to plenty of video evidence of crowd-kettling in the past to demonstrate this if peole are interested). The tactic appears to be to split up and detain sections of the crowd in order (I suppose) to reduce the potential for any future build-up of a situation. It is more manageable for the police to close off sections in a street than to have them free to march, but that rather defeats any sense of having a right to protest! And once you’re caught in the kettle you can’t get out, regardless of whether you were misbehaving or even just walking home. I don’t know whether U.S. police employ this tactic – it received a lot of criticism here in the UK recently at the G20 demonstrations.
The notion of climate activists being pawns of the powerful is quite a good idea for a novel. The reality is otherwise (I do know quite a number, so I am not just being disagreeable for the sake of it!).
Lucia,
I know what he said is wrong, but I am not convinced it was just a slip of the tongue/mis-statement. It’s not really a very important point as to what he said to the activists – but he says, and writes, plenty of other stuff that is plain wrong, such as the example I gave of his misrepresenting the U.S. record as global.
Simon–
These guys should have taken crowd control lessons from Mayor Daley. During one politically contentious meeting, you concentrated all the mounted police near demonstration areas. Turns out mounted police really work well in these situations for a bunch of reasons. (On the one hand, people who might slug a police officer don’t want to actually hurt innocent horses. On the other hand, they don’t want to be run down by a horse. )
Sure. But if you are going to ask a hypothetical “how could this be so”, I’m going to answer it. The fact is, people working toadvance the agenda for the powerful often are mistreated. So, you can use the evidence of their mistreatment as proof they are not working for the powerful.
That said: Why do I think they are kettling? The Danes feel they don’t have sufficient resources to handle the crowds. It may well be true that no one in the kettle planed to mis-behave. Or only 2 people planned to misbehave– and then couldn’t because of the kettling etc. But I think the main reason for kettling is the Dane police force feels it doesn’t have sufficient resources to handle things if violence does break out.
Should the be kettling? Well… maybe not. (I don’t know if it’s allowed in the US. But…well.. loads of police on horseback in proportion to protestors would make it unnecessary.
Simon–
I think this particular statement was a slip up. The reason is that he doesn’t repeat that one, and it is sooooo obviously wrong. Way wrong. 2+2= 7 wrong.
“Advocating powerful government action doesn’t make you a fascist.”
It does if you do it consistently.
Andrew
By my count in this thread Monckton was declared “wrong†on some issue 15 times by 6 separate people out of over 50 who participated. Included were the following modifiers: “alwaysâ€, “quiteâ€, “oftenâ€, “maybeâ€, “everythingâ€, “might beâ€, and “totallyâ€. There was 1 “not wrong†and 1 “doubt he was wrongâ€, again not necessarily on the same issue. Although I accept Lucia’s declaration that his statement of “15 years†was wrong (just as I may be wrong in my count above), in context it is probably irrelevant; unless of course you believe it speaks to the larger issue of his creditability.
Simon Evans,
Have you ever been on any large demonstrations? I was on plenty during the heyday of CND in the UK and they always attract all kinds of people who are attending for their own reasons which are nothing to do with the stated objectives of the demonstration. Major demonstrations in particular attract fringe groups, anarchists etc. Often these sorts of people are just along to cause mayhem.
Policing such events is exceedingly difficult. It is a typical middle class liberal response to say ‘the police overreacted’ (I’m not saying that there might not have been overreaction by some of the police, of course). But it is essentially lazy to put all the blame at the door of the police.
lucia:
See Dr. Schaffer’s Open Letter to Nature here:
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/Open_Letter.html
This article by Dr. Schaffer resonates with me:
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/mss/Surfeit.pdf
I would like to hear Tom Vonk’s perspective, not to mention Gavin Schmidt’s.
Dave Andrews (Comment#27963)
Yes, I have, and yes, I agree, there will always be a fringe element that attracts the attention. For example, at the G20 demonstrations there were a few (five or six or so? Can’t remember) who smashed the RBS bank windows, surrounded by press photographers. I think they should be imprisoned for those actions, in case you wonder. That doesn’t mean I am not cynical about the ‘staged’ elements of that event.
I don’t blame “the police”. I do blame thugs, whether they’re wearing uniform or not. So, I blame, absolutely, anyone chucking missliles at the police and I also blame any police officers smashing their riot shields into the faces of protesters who have their arms up in the air. I blame anyone with responsibility for their actions if their actions are disproportionate, on either side, and those who have the greatest influence upon the actions of many have the most responsibility.
bender (Comment#27967) December 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Yeah, anything is possible, but what we are measuring now is warming.
bender (Comment#27965) December 14th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I thought the ‘ice age’ scare was a sure sign of an alarmist.
Do you have some evidence to back that up or is this just a feeling?
bugs,
“Yeah, anything is possible, but what we are measuring now is warming.”
Yup, cities, airports, and climatologists adjustments are warming. What about the world??
“kuhnkat (Comment#28015) December 14th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
bugs,
“Yeah, anything is possible, but what we are measuring now is warming.â€
Yup, cities, airports, and climatologists adjustments are warming. What about the world??
Tell Dr Schaffer, bugs. Tell him to read the report. email him and tell him that. dork.
JohnV,
“Are there no lukewarmers/skeptics/denialists/contrarians willing to call bulls**t on Monckton’s statement about 15 years of cooling? Not even one?â€
I finally saw the Monckton interview. At 3:20 into it Lord Monckton states “…temperature hasn’t increased statistically significantly for 15 years…”
You have to listen to it your self to insure I am interpreting this correctly, BUT, it appears to me that he was RIGHT!!!!! You got the statement WRONG!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE&feature=player_embedded
This is a very entertaining thread.
In the spirit of openness, I’ll disclose that I’ve exchanged a number of emails with Lord Monckton. Overall I respect him, in spite of him going somewhat over the top occasionally.
In this particular situation, I feel the protestors were completely out of line invading the meeting. Had they entered, sat quietly and listened, then politely asked questions it would have been fine, but disrupting the meeting was reprehensible. The only thing they didn’t do was commit acts of vandalism and violence, unlike the hooligans who were arrested. If I was in Lord Monckton’s place, I probably would have called them Nazis as well. And if it offended them to be called Hitler Youth, I say boo frickin’ hoo. Maybe they aren’t Nazis by the strict definition, but what they did showed they have no respect for the rights or opinions or privacy of others. Hmmm, sounds pretty “nazi” to me.
Of course, let’s not forget to mention what happened when Phelim McAleer politely asked Dr. Schneider questions about climategate. The security guards were on him in a flash, which interestingly is the same thing that happened when he questioned Al Gore about the inconvenient errors in the Inconvenient Truth not long ago. More themes of “nazism”.
I don’t have a lot of time for the type of mindless protest in the meeting or outside it for that matter. I live in Vancouver, which is home to a lot of protestors. They are against everything from Expo 86 to the 2010 Olympics to any form of development. They are very quick to claim they have the right to chain themselves to public buildings and disrupt traffic and even vandalize public property, but look out if anyone calls them on it. There are times when I think maybe it wouldn’t be so bad to give up some freedom if that meant not having to put up with their nonsense all of the time.
Finally, I can’t help but respond to Sod’s remark, “sorry folks, but i am really glad that Monckton is not on my side in this debate.” I would much rather have Lord Monckton on my side of the AGW debate than Al Gore. In my opinion, Al Gore is as full of bullsh*t as anyone on the planet. He claims to be the father of the internet and he lies and exaggerates almost incessantly. (How do you tell when Al Gore is lying? Whenever he is talking.) I’ll gladly have Lord Monckton on my side with Al “manbearpig” Gore on your side.
I don’t think Monckton claimed “statistically significant cooling since 95â€, rather than any warming over the last 15 years was insignificant.
Looking at the data, it appears he is correct. Since 1994 the trendline gives about 0.1deg warming point to point.
I would define that as insignificant
You have to listen to it your self to insure I am interpreting this correctly, BUT, it appears to me that he was RIGHT!!!!! You got the statement WRONG!!!
Monckton has made a lot of claims, and they are basically all wrong or at least seriously misleading.
just seconds before he makes the statement about the 15 years, he claims that temperature has been going down over the last 10 years.
it is really funny, because the lady made the right guess…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE&feature=player_embedded
(about 3 min into the video)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2009/mean:12/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2009
in the talk with the youth, he makes the claim that we have seen 9 years of rapid and significant decline of temperature. and he claims that there hasn t been any global warming for 15 years, in any of the 5 datasets.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954160.ece
(1.10 to 1.40)
all of those claims are simply false!
In this particular situation, I feel the protestors were completely out of line invading the meeting. Had they entered, sat quietly and listened, then politely asked questions it would have been fine, but disrupting the meeting was reprehensible.
you do not know anything about protests, do you?
if they had “sat quietly and listened, then politely asked questions”, they would not have been protesting!
what these young people did, was a perfectly legitimate form of protest. they will not be punished for it in any former, neither should they. what was out of line, was Monckton’s reaction to the incident.
sod: “what these young people did, was a perfectly legitimate form of protest”.
On the same ethical(?) basis, then what Monckton said was a perfectly legitimate form of response – and significantly more intelligent than boorish chanting.
Whose measurement of earth-temperature did Monckton use?
What level of significance did he choose?
Did he correct the cheating in the “official” numbers (CRU, GISS)?
¿¿ Does anybody believe that the IPCC prognosis of currently rapidly rising temperatures is correct ??
Simon,
I don’t know if you are being intentionally extreme in your views about the townhall protestors, but I don’t think anyone would describe them as any type of “youths” (for example, see the picture in the article you linked). There is no reason for me to connect them to Hitler, as the MSM and Democratic legislators have already made that leap. My only point is that Monckton has as much right to make the comparison as anyone, and that there are valid historical parallels. After all, at some point the Hitler Youths were just activist young people, as well; patriotic boy and girl scouts who were building a better future based on an indoctrinated ideology. Is there someone who is wise enough to know when these groups have crossed the line, before they become the next incarnation of the Hitler Youth or Red Guard? Perhaps we should be as wary of excess proletariat power as we are of excess government power. In my opinion, Monckton’s article was intentionally extreme, just as Hansen calling coal trains “death trains” was intentionally extreme. It’s a game of words, and people are bound to go over the top.
I agree with Daryl M, I’d much rather be associated with Monckton’s mis-statements than Gore’s (the Earth’s mantle is several million degrees!?!?, that’s a bit worse than quibbling over a statistically insignificant warming/cooling trend).
kuhnkat (#28023):
I didn’t watch the interview link you posted. I will trust that he got it right in *that* interview. I was asking about the video that I linked (in #27581) — not the video that you linked.
.
As I have said, it was probably just a simple honest mistake. It’s no big deal to call BS on inconsequential errors.
Incidentally, the Red Guard is an excellent example of the hypothetical “notion of … activists being pawns of the powerful.” It was an independent protest group, formed by college students, that was used and perverted by Mao to further his own political ends. When they were no longer of use, he had the PLA hunt them down and execute them.
I just re-watched the Monckton video that I posted. I mis-quoted. He said:
“There has been no warming in 15 years…in the last 9 years we have had a rapid and statistically significant decline in temperature”
My quotes above were wrong. I apologize for that and call BS on myself. 🙂 However, the claim of 9 years of statistically significant cooling is also wrong.
“temperature hasn’t increased statistically significantly for 15 years”
.
And now y’all see why I refused to comment on “Monckton’s statement”: I did not trust the messenger to get it right. And so my skepticism is rewarded. Thank you, kuhnkat. (I’m not going to take the time to verify your statement because you provide a direct quote and a time stamp of the quote.)
.
John V, thanks for the apology. Please take greater care in the future. Now you see Monckton’s point about that bullying tactic? It will blow up in your face if your facts are wrong.
I revised the above statement to recognize John V’s apology. Hopefully the edits show up.
.
Now what I want is for John V to recognize Monckton’s point about bullying people on the basis of religious zealotry who have no clue about the facts. That can blow up in your face, can it not?
And now y’all see why I refused to comment on “Monckton’s statementâ€: I did not trust the messenger to get it right. And so my skepticism is rewarded
bender, this is just stupid.
apart from the fact, that JohnV has already apologized, you again got the basics wrong.
in those snippets, Monckton makes 4 claims:
1. here has been no warming in 15 years…
obviously wrong
2. in the last 9 years we have had a rapid and statistically significant decline in temperature
obviously wrong
3. temperature has been going down over the last 10 years.
obviously wrong
4. temperature hasn’t increased statistically significantly for 15 years
depends on the choice of Dataset
“you again got the basics wrong”
.
That’s a curious remark, because I haven’t even looked at “the basics” so can not have gotten them wrong. John V admitted he got the quote wrong and though he has apologized for that, has not apologized for doing exactly what you are doing now: imploring people to judge on the basis of partial and filtered evidence. How do I know you’ve got Monckton down correctly? How do I know you’re not making the same mistakes John V did?
Do what kuhnkat did. Put quote marks on your statements, put time stamps on them, and post the url to the youtube video. Then maybe i’ll consider your contribution worthy of comment. Until then, it’s just more of the same from you.
sod [28071]
Whether Monckton or for that matter Jones, Mann Briffa,Treberth et.al. are right or not counts for squat in the greater scheme of things: Tony Blair [the ‘UK” former PM] yesterday gave a press conference at the climate confag in Copenhagen and made this very clear when he said that “the science does not need to be correct” but that “we have to act anyway” [to combat climate change].
In stating this Blair voiced explicitly what the the actions of the IPCC has been telling us all along: The actual science do NOT matter. Only the message and its overarching political goals.
Who is right or wrong is of no consequence. When someone is honest enough to tell us that, best to take him at face value.
. How do I know you’ve got Monckton down correctly? How do I know you’re not making the same mistakes John V did?
by looking it up. JohnV provided the quote above. i did link the video (and gave a time stamp) above. (sod (Comment#28046) December 15th, 2009 at 12:47 am)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954160.ece
start 1:20 into the film. John was a really nice guy, and apologised for confusing 2 false comments by Monckton.
Monckton still is wrong, just is a slightly different way. (and twice, actually)
Tony Blair [the ‘UK” former PM] yesterday gave a press conference at the climate confag in Copenhagen and made this very clear when he said that “the science does not need to be correct†but that “we have to act anyway†[to combat climate change].
Where are you quoting from? I can find no Google result for the words you present in quotation marks.
What he said in his Copenhagen speech was:
“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege.
It doesn’t need to be.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/13/copenhagen-tony-blair-speech-transcript
bender:
I’ve been trying to get a point across, and the point is not that Monckton made a mistake (although I misquoted him, he did still make a few mistakes). Everyone makes mistakes. The thing that I think is important is the inability of some people to admit when the “leaders” of their “sides” make mistakes. It definitely happens on both sides and it gets in the way of productive conversation.
.
If somebody makes a mistake, even if that person is right 99% of the time (or perhaps especially if that person is right 99% of the time), then the mistake should be admitted and corrected. It’s really not that hard.
.
You seem to think that I was “bullying people on the basis of religious zealotry”. Let me repeat — I did not say anything about Monckton himself. I was only asking if anyone could admit that he made a mistake (and he did make a few).
Monckton is repeating his lie, about the source of what he said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/monckton-lies-to-ap-denie_b_392233.html
“It was not I who called them Hitler Youth. It was three Germans and a Dane in the audience.”
the term “denialist” was invented specifically for this guy…
Sod–
IN the blob post I link, Monckton clearly refers to some group as “Hitler-Jugend”:
Unless someone is ghost-writing Monckton’s blog posts, he called them Hitler-Jugend in writing.
Unless someone is ghost-writing Monckton’s blog posts, he called them Hitler-Jugend in writing.
i know that. the story that he is making up (and that was swallowed by multiple of your readers, for example crosspatch) is the following:
he did not come up with the idea of calling them “hitler youth” by himself. instead the term came from people in the audience during the event.
this story is an obvious misrepresentation of what happened on the video. but that just is the way Monckton does things…
Sod– This is one of those rare occasions where we agree.
Mind you, it may be that someone else first thought up the name calling, and then Monckton embraced it himself. But I don’t see how that makes any difference. He called them “Hitler-Jugend” on YouTube and in writing.
well, better rarely than never….
Simon Evans,
““It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege.
It doesn’t need to be.†“
Substitute ‘WMD’ for ‘climate change’ and I bet you would not be so supportive of Blair’s remark
Simon
Keep the personal out of it. The content and implications of what Blair said would be clear to any regularly constituted jury.
As David Andrews says, substitute WMS and what are you left with?
How about a clinical trial in cancer? Or Blair saying something to the effect that ” the engineerning data on the Boeing 787 tell us that we don’t really know it is safe [even if the FAA { substitute IPCC} says so] but no matter, we should start flying it anyway”?
Or why not, we have lost the base data in our 4500 patient multiple site open heart aortic valve replacement clinical trials, and so “the science may not be as strong as some of our corporate supporters might wish”, but let’s still just get on with the procedure anyway?
That is in essence that is Blair said. No ifs, buts or whats.
Because I work in areas where what I wrote above is very real and that because of the positions I hold I am personally legally liable if I were to allow anything even remotely akin to the above examples to proceed on my watch, I know that what Gore, Blair, the IPCC and the UN are covering up is quite simply criminal.
Should you have any doubts, why don’t you fly the examples above by some legal comment, particularly from those who work in the anglo-saxon common law jurisprudence. The continental {Napoleonic} civil system will view it sighly differently as it is not based on the notion of “tort”, but based on experience will come to a not dissimilar conclusion.
If you have a rejoinder that is based on something in the real world I’m sure the others on this blog would appreciate.
Meanwhile, the core conclsuion stands: the science and who is wright or wrong does nor matter.
There is a discontinuity in the video that I saw, between the introduction and Monckton trying to give his speech, during which he might well have heard concerns expressed by those in the audience with some experience of Hitler Youth tactics.
Of course, they still remind me of the sheep in Animal Farm.
Actually, I appreciate Simon’s nuance. Blair is saying that the science may not be settled, but it’s settled *enough* … to move forward. That is the statement that I think needs debating – whether it’s settled *enough*. Skeptics have finally got the point across that the science is not settled. Now that that battle is won the skeptics will start to argue that it’s “not settled enough”. Which is a much more nuanced argument.
anna v:
“I think there may be a cultural bias here on the terms “Nazi†and “fascismâ€, between the new world and the old world. I think in europe it is used as a description of “totalitarian mentalityâ€, no direct connection with Jews or the holocaust as far as it pertains to Jews.”
“For me, the fact that he has economic interests in selling hot air CO2 and making a big movie trying to stampede the western world into committing economic hara kiri is much worse than isolating AIDs victims suggested at a time when there was a lot of fear and not enough knowledge about it(1987 American Spectator article (available here) in which Lord Christopher Monckton –).
Monckton exaggerates, but is not wrong: the temperatures are in stasis, as they would be since most probably we are on another wiggle of the Holocene downslide to the next ice age. Al Gore is wrong in all his prophecies of doom ( but right in shoving in the dough from CO2 cap and trade in the EU).”
I’m an european, and you are, in general, completely wrong about the use of the word “nazi” and the connection with jews in informed public debate. Totalitarian mentality is called just that, even “fascist” is used with utmost care when it is not more qualified. “Right wing populism”, for example, is often much better to use. Using such expressions without very precise qualification is lack of seriosity, nothing else.
I think you should take your views about economic hara kiri to the EU directorate responsible for the renewable energy directive, clearly they must have missed a lot of points from your insight, and need to be set straight.
As for Al Gore, I think you have some insight in his prophecies unknown to most of us. Probably, in addition to some considerable gift of prophecy yourself, if you, for instance, today can say for sure that sea level next 100 years will NOT rise significantly more that the ca 3.4 cm/decade trend from 1990-2009. That is one of Al Gore’s last concerns, which he shares with (among others) Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre.
One of the main reasons for having zero-tolerance with name calling, is that “anti-fascism”,”anti-nazism”,”anti-communism” or “anti-capitalism” very often serves to legitimate the same sort of behavior/condition one is supposed to fight.
Suppression of free speech is no better when it hits Monckton than Al Gore. And I think a lot of activists are working against their own cause.
When someone says “Kill the devil!” Who is speaking, really?
There is a discontinuity in the video that I saw, between the introduction and Monckton trying to give his speech, during which he might well have heard concerns expressed by those in the audience with some experience of Hitler Youth tactics.
yes, this could have happened. like you could win the lottery today, before getting hit by a lightning bolt.
Monckton exaggerates, but is not wrong: the temperatures are in stasis, as they would be since most probably we are on another wiggle of the Holocene downslide to the next ice age.
all of the things he said were simply false. see my comment #28071.
claiming a temperature fall, when temps are rising is NOT “exaggeration”. in the context of available data, and having been corrected multiple times, i would say he is lying.
Al Gore is wrong in all his prophecies of doom
pure bias.
Dave Andrews (Comment#28153) December 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Simon Evans,
““It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege.
It doesn’t need to be.†“
Substitute ‘WMD’ for ‘climate change’ and I bet you would not be so supportive of Blair’s remark
Where did I say that I was “supportive of Blair’s remark”? I was simply clarifying what he’d said, in contrast to tetris’s invented direct quotation (apparently he thinks it’s “personal” for me to point out when he’s making stuff up! :-D).