Just about everybody these days knows about Godwin’s Law, and its standard corollary, that the first person to introduce an allusion to the Nazis into an Internet debate automatically loses. Not, it would seem, Graham Young, chief editor of Online Opinion. In the course of an article denouncing the ABC’s Robyn Williams, he takes a sideswipe at me, calling me a brownshirt. Not content with his automatic loss, he goes for the quinella in this companion post, accusing Williams of being a communist.[1] Bizarrely, Young admits in comments that this allegation (now widely reproduced on the Internet) is untrue, but does not bother to correct the post, let along apologise.
The cause of all this: making some critical observations about various global warming “skeptics”. Young doesn’t (and can’t) deny the truth of these observations, which I suppose is why he feels the need to crank up his rhetoric to the point of this spectacular double Godwin with pike. Rather he complains that pointing such facts out is “not nice”.
I’ll be back with more on this later, I expect, but for the moment I’ll settle for the automatic win.
1. This is presented as a statement of fact rather than an analogy, which might, on some views, disqualify Young from the double Godwin, but qualifies him for a range of other awards.
John Quiggin 
Reading your blogotariat link, I get the feeling that Young genuinely has no idea who Williams is, or what he’s achieved in thirty years of science broadcasting. He also seems to be simply clueless as to why a biology degree is more than useful on GW. As a member of the Liberals, he should be familiar with low recruitment and habitat loss.
“Godwin’s Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one’s opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.”
I guess Young would want an exemption from Godwin’s law on the grounds that he is attacking (what he sees as) propaganda.
The incident cited in this post notwithstanding:
Implying that one’s behaviour is of a “brownshirt” nature, and outright calling the same person a “nazi”, are horses of two entirely different colours.
The behaviour of many of the true believers of global warming is certainly brownshirt in nature, and terming them thus in no way “automatically” loses a debate.
If waiting until an opponent uses the term brownshirt is considered winning a debate, then someone has a few roos loose in the top paddock.
This stoush on OLO is recommended reading. Young’s dummy spit over Williams’ intro to Don Aitken’s ABC Okhams Razor contribution certainly didn’t upset Aitken who, to his credit, has been ready to respond to all-comers. Even the OLO publisher gets involved. Hopefully this is just the appetiser in a wakening call on global warming. It needs to be front and centre for mine
Brownshirts & Communists in the one article.
Are there any other baddies who measure up to those two & should also have been included?
To get the full set of boogie-men there should have been at least one “Taliban”, perhaps an “IRA” or a “terrorist” (of the traditional Baader-Meinhof variety, rather than the modern Islamist variety)
And would “Maoist” count, or is it a sub-set of “Communist”?
I didn’t notice in the OLO article any mention of Don Aitkin’s lack of a physics degree, only Robyn William’s lack thereof — rhetoric instead of reason by the opinion writer as usual.
In the past Robyn Williams has given quite a number of sceptics, including Bob Carter, Ian Plimer (and also sceptics not of the AGW flavour) airplay on quite respectful terms. Contrast that with Mike Duffy’s treatment of the majority scientific opinion on AGW, for example.
Counting #2 and #3, both justifying the use of Nazi analogies, we have a quadrella! At this point my knowledge of exotic bets is exhausted – can anyone point to the next step?
There’s the Superfecta, where you have to pick the first six place getters, in order.
Think this fits into the realm of the very exotic parlay bet.
PARLAY -Similar to all up betting, you are required to make one selection in either three or four races. Parlay betting is actually a way to place multiple all up bets and therefore increase your chance of winning. To receive a dividend, at least two selections must be successful. Your final dividend is calculated by multiplying your initial investment by the dividend paid to each of your selections, for every successful all up bet. If two or more parlay selections are scratched, you are entitled to a refund on your investment.
:0)
Steve, I think it’s fair to say that Godwin’s law fundamentally refers to to any circumstance in which extreme personal attacks are used to replace credible arguments. I certainly think anyone who resorts to personal attacks obviously has obviously run out of actual responses, and therefore has basically lost the argument.
I will agree that calling someone’s behavior like a brownshirt’s is different from calling them a Nazi, but only in degree and not in kind. They both disqualify you and you’ve still lost.
Just to clarify, since people may not have followed the link, a brownshirt is a member of the SturmAbteilung (Storm Troopers) the armed militia of the Nazi Party.
Calling someone a brownshirt is the same thing as calling them a Nazi, in much the same way as calling someone a Red is calling them a Communist (more precisely actually, since there are other parties that use red, but only the Nazis used brown).
“The behaviour of many of the true believers of global warming is certainly brownshirt in nature, …”
Yeah who could forget the way thousands of “skeptics” were dragged from their homes, beaten mercilessly and forced to watch as their homes and businesses were destroyed.
Oh and lets not forget the mass torch-lit marches by thousands of heavily armed greens though major cities.
Joseph Clark: I think what that means is that bringing up Nazis isn’t a Godwin if you’re discussing Nazis literally. (Those who currently defend the hyperbolic use of Nazi comparisons are just using the “Clinton did it too!” excuse. Bleh.)
steve at the pub: you forgot one of the most popular group of bogeymen of all time: those guys who wrote “ad abolendam diversam haeresium pravitatem”.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
John, someone who throws the term “denier” around like you do has already lost the debate before it’s begun, on your preferred terms of engagement.
I’m still waiting for your response to my last email, my preferred terms of engagement being argument rather than abuse.
Anyone who invokes Godwin’s law to win an argument is a total Nazi.
“someone who throws the term “denierâ€? around like you do”
Actually, I have never used this term, and I avoid terms like this in part because of the possibility that they might be taken as a Godwin violation. I prefer “delusionist”.
“my preferred terms of engagement being argument rather than abuse.”
Stunning!
Coming from someone who’s just accused several people of being nazis, that has to be the funniest thing i’ve read all year.
Graham,
Could you address Nick @1 point regarding the relative weight given to a politcal science degree and a biology degree with regard to global warming? On the face of it any scientific qualification would appear to be more relevant that a humanities qualification but perhaps you have a convincing argument to the contrary? This is not to say that those who are qualified outside the sciences can’t make a cogent argument for their case, however you are using qualifications as the basis for your critique and I think you need to explain yourself. Unless, of course, you are an unqualified ignoramus which I’m sure you aren’t?
Patrick B I suggest you go and read the article before you try to summarise the argument, because you have got it about 180 degrees wrong.
I understand that you’re probably relying on Nick’s summary.
I am relying on the article referred to as a “companion post” in JQ’s post and dated the 27/04. In it you list Williams’ qualifications all of which are science related. You appear relucant to address Nick’s point. I am wont to conclude that you prefer a bit of argument from authority yourself given your position as editor and oft interviewed media personality.
“Actually, I have never used this term[denier], and I avoid terms like this in part because of the possibility that they might be taken as a Godwin violation” – JQ
JQ (19/2/07) “Another own goal for the denialists?”
(the term and derivatives used 5 times in that article…
JQ (4/9/06)”The rest of the editorial contains allusions to all the denialist claptrap the Oz has been pushing for years now”
JQ (24/1/06)”neither the judgement of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, nor the evidence that led them to that judgement, has had much effect on the denialists”
etc etc
Does denying that you use the term denier make you a denier?
As you’ll see Mark, I switched to “delusionist” quite a while ago
I admit I was playing a trick on Graham, by saying that I’d never used “denier” (which I haven’t), when I did use variants in the past. I thought it might force him into doing a bit of actual research, but it was not the right thing to do. Apologies for this.
To me – delusionist is probably more insulting than denier. Delusionist implies a degree of stupidity or gullibility whereas ‘denier’ implies knowledge of the topic but a conscious choice to ‘deny’ the exist of AGW.
The problem with these labels is that they tend to over-simplify debate on what is an incredibly complex topic.
I, for example, happen to think that the science has proven AGW is real, but that the effects are probably being overstated by environmentalists and anti-consumer groups with broader agendas to push. My view is that we should be taking measures to reduce CO2 emissions today, but on a no regrets basis – in other words, lets do those things that are either low cost or actually have a positive economic benefit.
I guess I’m going to be labelled a ‘delusionist’!
Yes, the OLO article and comments do make for interesting reading. Despite being aware of GY’s ‘delusionist’ bias, I was quite astonished at both the preciousness of his argument and the vituperous attacks on Williams, Quiggin and Lambert.
Not a very good look for OLO or its publisher, I’m afraid.
Andrew
Anyone who’s been following this issue for a while would be well aware that the decision by Prof Quiggin and others to use terms like “denialist” and “delusionist” was borne of frustration at the endless repetition by AGW skeptics of specious, irrelevant, ad hominem, discredited or blatantly false talking points in support of their (constantly shifting) position.
At some point, the defenders of AGW science simply gave up on trying to engage the skeptics in reasonable argument, since they appear to be immune to it.
While it is dispiriting that discussion of the issue has fallen to this level, the blame for the decline lies squarely with the “delusionists”.
Yay, the “Clinton did it too!” argument in full force!
I wonder how this argument explains Young’s charges of the Climate Institute being ‘left-biased’, when the organization which hasn’t actually attacked him in any way?
Or is it brownshirt tactics every time someone says something that might make him look bad?
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Tim M,
Heaps of people annoy me but I try not to call them nasty names. But seriously, a lot of people have their first foray into GW discussions marked by being called names for asking reasonable questions. Some of these people fight back after being forced into a corner by shrieking activists; they write blogs, or blog posts, or articles to present the other side of the argument. The more names they get called, the more personal attacks and insults, the more persistent they become. But that’s just a handful of people. Most people will disengage after the initial barrage of insults, keep their questions to themselves, and write off the whole AGW movement as a bunch of brownshirts. There are a lot of these people.
Joseph Clark goes, ‘Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!’ Is this some kind of Pavlovian reflex or what?
Ah, “activists” as a pejorative. This is why I’m proposing to use the term “inactivists” (instead of “deniers”, “denialists”, “delayers”, “delusionists”, etc.) to describe those people who want to Do Nothing about global warming.
If some people think “activism” is bad, then logic dictates that they should think that “inactivism” is good… so they have no good reason to be offended by the word “inactivists”. (Jonah Goldberg actually uses the term with pride.) If people get offended over the use of the term “inactivists” — and there are such people — then it just shows that they’re a bunch of bullying cowards.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Joseph Clark, what you’ve said may well describe the experience of some, or even many, people who post comments on blogs concerning AGW (from any perspective on the issue), but it doesn’t reflect the reality, and history, of the presentation of information skeptical of AGW in the public arena.
What it shows, perhaps, is one of the drawbacks of blog comments threads as a discussion forum – if the issue is controversial, threads can easily degenerate into ad hominem sh*tfights. But the behaviour of posters on comments threads should be differentiated from the publication of opinion pieces in blogs or any other public medium. That was what my comments were directed to.
The terms “denialist” and “delusionist” are clearly labels, and they undoubtedly have pejorative connotations. By the same token, they are terms clearly intended to reflect what their users see in the opinions of those so labelled – that they should not be dignified with the term “skeptic”, as that term refers to thoughtful doubters, whereas the endless repetition of false and discredited claims (which is all too characteristic of AGW skeptic pieces) is not compatible with such a stance.
But whatever the desirability or otherwise of terms like “denialist” and “delusionist”, they are in no way comparable to calling people brownshirts or nazis. That is simple slander. Which is the reason Godwin’s law was invented in the first place.
“Heaps of people annoy me but I try not to call them nasty names. But seriously, a lot of people have their first foray into GW discussions marked by being called names for asking reasonable questions.”
Yes names like eco-freaks, Green Nazis; socialist, Stalinist, Maoist; racist, Pol Pot supporter; baby killer; fraud, hoaxster; anti-poor; atni-science; con artist kool-aid drinkers; neo-pagans; Gaea-worshippers et cetera.
Oh wait, those names all entirely justified, aren’t they Joppeh?
Ian,
I’m not trying to justify name-calling on either side. I’m just saying that being rude is usually counter-productive.
And i’m sorry people called you those names. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The term “denialist” derives from “denier” which in turn derives from “Holocaust denier”. It is a simile making a comparison to someone who is an apologist for Nazism. If John really recants from the term he can take all the references on his site to it down.
He was offered the opportunity to write a response to my article on On Line Opinion, but he didn’t take it. Instead he went for an ad hominem attack here. From where I sit it looks like experimental proof that he uses “brown shirt tactics”.
Graham, you don’t need a lengthy chain of etymology like this to work out the meaning of “brownshirt”. Still, you now get credit for a triple Godwin.
And you appear not to understand the meaning of “ad hominem”. Look it up.
Graham,
If you really recant from calling Williams a Marxist you can take all references to it on your site down.
Graham, I think if you read over the comments here and at your own site, you’ll realise that you’re not helping yourself, and particularly, not helping Online Opinion, with this kind of thing.
As Patrick says, it’s not too late for a retraction of this unfortunate article and the post attacking Williams. I’d be happy to acknowledge it, and withdraw any personal criticism of you that you feel is unfair.
“Graham, If you really recant from calling Williams a Marxist you can take all references to it on your site down.”
Should be no problem since the article doesn’t say Williams is a Marxist, merely mentions in passing that his father was.
Its a bit of a stretch to invoke Godwin over the term ‘brown shirt’. The term has moved beyond a mere Nazi reference and taken on a meaning of its own – thuggish behaviour used to silence and figuratively terrorise opponents.
It’s in the same vein as blitz(krieg). Are we to invoke Godwin the next time someone advocates a blitz on this or that activity?
Is there any sane reason why the old favorite Denialist or the new favourite Delusionist has to be used at all? Surely a little scepticism of some of the more outrageous claims is a healthy thing.
“Graham, If you really recant from calling Williams a Marxist you can take all references to it on your site down.”
The site reads:
“He has in the past, and perhaps to the present, been a supporter of communist politics”
Now you might quibble and point out that the words “communist” and “Marxist” are distinct, and I would agree. Perhaps as distinct as “denier” and “denialist”. However distinguishing between either of these pairs of terms might be seen as puerile hair-splitting.
That said “all references” have by no means been removed.
I frankly don’t care if Graham Young thinks Williams is a Marxist (or a communist, or whatever breed of radical totalitarian leftist) or not, but it is a bit rich for him to waffle on about “recanting” and “removing all references” when he has this sort of thing on his own site.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: 1de·ni·erPronunciation: di-ˈnī(-ə)r, dē- Function: noun Date: 15th century
No, “denier” doesn’t derive from “Holocaust denier”, because the Holocaust hadn’t existed in the 15th century.
And Joseph Clark, what were the “reasonable questions” that Young was asking again?
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Patrick,
The sentence you quote is neither in the article nor on the OLO site but in GY’s blog site.
Saying someone supports communist policies doesn’t make them a Marxist. Hell, I supported their policies of perestroika and glasnost not to mention their anti-Nazi policies of 1941-1945….oops caught out by Godwin again -damn.
“Saying someone supports communist policies doesn’t make them a Marxist.”
No it doesn’t, but saying someone supports communist politics does make the accuser a card-carrying idiot.
I can also quibble over Young’s use of the word “recant”, a word which is often associated with a certain not-very-nice people. Maybe I’ll bring it up when he starts comparing himself to Galileo.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Mark,
Since we seem to be on a hair-splitting crusade here, I did mention it was on G. Young’s “site”, by which I meant his blog, I guess this was unclear. I recant! However the difference between ones “politics” and “policies” are not of the hair-splitting variety. As bi points out above, a “supporter of xxx politics” really indicates a person who has taken the whole political manifesto on holus-bolus.
We all think On-Line Opinion is a Good Thing so its a pity to see the editor wrap himself around his own axle over a momentary lapse of reason.
Advice To Graham Young: When in a hole, stop digging. Or quit while you are not to far behind.
I fixed a mental typo for you Jack (Clark to Young). If I’ve missed some subtle point, please correct me – JQ
Look, in all seriousness, Young is an insignificant Liberal party hack with an ideological barrow to tow. Ignore him.
Additionally, true skeptics must challenge current orthodoxy with evidence of similar (or better) quality. So called AGW skeptics have nothing of the sort.
“Surely a little scepticism of some of the more outrageous claims is a healthy thing.”
This is the core of the problem. The use of the term “sceptic” incorporates the assumption that the findings of mainstream science should be regarded as “outrageous claims”.
One of Don Aitkin’s rhetorical ploys is to say “Now 385 parts per million is plainly not a lot” and later “But how does a small increase in a very small component have such a large apparent effect?”
This is calculated to produce doubt in his target audience: “No, 385 parts per million is not much, how could it make a difference?”
Speaking of small components, I wonder if they are equally sceptical when they take their recommended dose of 0.5 parts per million of little blue diamond performance enhancer.
I’ll pay a lot more attention to Don Aitkin, satp, Graham Young et al. when I see their qualifications in fluid dynamics, molecular physics and thermodynamics.
The interesting thing about this thread is that it is a distraction (presumably intentional) from my examination of the damage that Quiggin has done to a number of men’s reputations. Quiggin confects outrage at my accurate description of him as using brownshirt tactics, because that is an easy way of avoiding facing his unethical behaviour with respect to Singer and Landscheidt and their contributions to the climate change debate.
This damage is far in excess of any damage that might accrue to him from my accurate assessment of his unethical behaviour.
His post is also inaccurate. Despite Quiggin’s assertion that I said Williams was a Communist, I never did. I posted a list of things which I thought I knew and invited comments and clarifications. I was the one who clarified his political position, and I was the one who posted the clarification. According to John Quiggin you apparently can’t ask a question on the Internet.
For that matter, saying that someone uses brownshirt tactics is not the same thing as saying they are a brownshirt.
John Quiggin asks for a retraction of my article, but it is he who ought to be retracting and apologising.
Writing that Landscheidt was an amateur climatologist when, in fact, Landscheidt was an amateur climatologist, does not damage his reputation. Nor is the same as burning a synagogue.
And according to Young, by posting this comment I am using brown-shirt tactics.