Climate Contrarian Monckton calls young climate activists “Hitler Youth” and "Nazis"

Wed, 2009-12-09 14:57Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

Climate Contrarian Monckton calls young climate activists “Hitler Youth” and "Nazis"

Fifty young U.S. clean energy activists stormed the stage today in Copenhagen during a live webcast organized by Americans for Prosperity and featuring climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton

When the youth group interrupted the webcast to deliver the message that real Americans want clean energy and a fair climate treaty, Monckton went ballistic, calling the students “crazed Hitler youth” and “Nazis.”

The incident was not likely the intended result Americans for Prosperity hoped for as it launched the COP15 version of its “Hot Air Tour” (a.k.a. denial-a-palooza). AFP sent its team to Copenhagen “to make sure that our side of the story is told.” But their live event today – complete with the student protest - was webcast to over forty climate denier rallies taking place in cities across the United States.

SustainUS reports that “a paltry audience of five conference attendees” attended the event to hear Monckton’s (planned) speech, with the balance of the audience comprised of AFPers and the youth activists (who entered surreptitiously in small groups before taking the stage with their clean energy message).

The young activists, representing a number of youth action groups including SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs, kicked off the protest by holding banners in front of the cameras reading “Climate Disaster Ahead” and “Clean Energy Now.”

When AFP staffers ripped the banners out of their hands, the students began a five-minute chant of “Real Americans for Prosperity are Americans for Clean Energy,” leaving AFP organizers scratching their heads about what to do.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips and his camera crew tried unsuccessfully to focus the lens more tightly on Monckton as he continued speaking, hoping to take back control of the event despite the protest in the background.  With several of the youth activists clustered around the podium, AFP kept the cameras rolling, continuing to stream the footage to the broader audience back in the U.S.

That’s when Monckton let loose, saying live on camera: “You are listening now to the shouts in the background of the Hitler youth.”

Monckton’s tirade aside, the American youths had a clear message to deliver, highlighting the fact that “clean energy creates jobs.” Rachel Barge, a 24-year-old entrepreneur from San Francisco, CA who was the first young person to raise her voice at the event, said afterwards that “These climate action delayers and science deniers are stealing bold, new economic opportunities from the American public.”

That sentiment was echoed by Laura Comer, a 21-year-old from Strongsville, Ohio who also participated in the action. Comer said, “We’re representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans. The real America wants clean energy - not more fossil fuel-funded lies about the science.”

Update: For some reason, Americans for Prosperity enjoyed the stunt so much, they posted their own video of the protest. Watch AFP’s own footage of the “radical protesters” (a.k.a. students with a non-violent, coherent message) as they “attack” AFP, (or so AFP says). Note that Monckton’s tirade is not included in AFP’s version.

UPDATE: I interviewed Monckton briefly outside the Bella Center about his “Hitler youth” comment. Here’s what he had to say (along with some fascinating delusions about coal and oil, which Monckton claims are as clean as wind and solar power):

Comments

Monckton is an excentric cheeseball. The Nazis were ultra-right wingers, and closer to him than to this kind of American youth. Americans for Prosperity: the guys who also boycott the health reform…

So Moncton went for the “reductio ad Hitlerum” (see “Godwin’s Law”).

The new baked leader of the opposition here, Tony Abbott, did recently something similar when he compared the Copenhagen meeting to Munich. How silly can you get.

The operative term in Hitler youth is YOUTH. Many of the more prominent denialists are either retired or close to it (and presume to judge, for instance, the effectiveness of models they have never worked with themselves).

There is nothing for it. They have to die off. Don’t count on them changing their minds before their demise, even when they have to totter ankle-deep through water.

Was I too harsh on the old folk in my previous post?

The view that they have to die off is quite in accordance with Kuhnian views about ‘paradigm shifts’. Here is Donald Judd commenting on Kuhn: “Those who have worked most of their lives under the old paradigm likely will not make the change, but a new cohort entering the profession will rally around the new one, superseding the old paradigm as older members DIE OFF and are replaced by those who have been trained under the new paradigm.” (Judd. “Critical realism and composition theory” - emphasis added A.B.).

If I am not mistaken the competing paradigms are “natural variability” versus “anthropogenic change”.

Of course I am talking here about the very few climate scientists who are fair dinkum, as they say here, about their scepticism. I am thinking here for instance of a person like Henk Tennekes from Holland.

For the others to shut up it is sufficient to have their funding cut off which ere long might happen when the fossil fuel industry throws up the game.

I would say yes, hoping for a time when all people older than you are dead so you can implement carbon taxes will appear to those in the mainstream as radical. Although, I’m sure to those of the global warming faith your message is well received.
lets just agree not to fly any planes into any old folks homes ok?

I did know geologists who were trained against “continental drift” and could not accept the plate tectonics developed mainly by geophysicists. A paradigm shift applies there.

But, having first heard of heating due to added CO2 in the halls of science in 1964, and heard of it consistently ever since, without controversy over the basic science, I have not seen any signs of a paradigm shift in this subject. Some of the old geezers attended the same meetings I did, talked to the same people I did, never contradicted the research until recently.

I was surprised to see the controversy over the science erupt in the 90s and early 2000s. It was a manufactured controversy. Many of the promoters of this are (IMO) men who felt they never got the respect they were due from other scientists, who they were sure they were smarter than. Then they got idolized by their right wing funders, jetted around the country, deemed “esteemed scientists”, had speaking engagements and media events lined up for them by PR people. I feel certain that funders of this nonsense can find replacements for them, even people with some vestige of science training. But even a sleazy young scientists would think twice about burning their credentials for a decade of so of work.

For a somewhat less jaundiced and more factual view of this, see Naomi Oreskes video. I enjoy your thoughtful posts.

Actually there were 4 geologists who found the magnetic anomalies on the sea floor at spreading ridges that set the stage for plate tectonics. In 1990 I had the opportunity to visit the very lab (USGS in San Fransisco) where they discovered those anomalies. I was given a tour by Brent G. Dalrymple, one of those scientists. He also edit my polonium halos paper.

I wrote a book report on shifting continents (they seemed to fit together) when i was in the 6th grade (1954)

Im glad your scientists “discovered” this too some 36 years latter - must have caused quite the Buzz.

Alfred Wegener got there before you and others had also considered the possibilty.

By 1954 continental drift was on many a geologists mind although later displaced by the more complete theory (in the scientific sense - you do appreciate the difference) of plate tectonics.

A ‘book report’. What is that exactly? Not equal to a scientific paper at a guess.

RE: I did know geologists who were trained against “continental drift” and could not accept the plate tectonics developed mainly by geophysicists. A paradigm shift applies there.

Similarly I knew many theologians who were trained in papal infalabilty and simply could not accept that the pope was God’s constable on earth.

Then a paradigm shift occured that gave birth to the Protestants…even to our very own Pilgrims who accpeted this shift as their new truth

many similarities in all this isn’t there?

RE: “Those who have worked most of their lives under the old paradigm likely will not make the change, but a new cohort entering the profession will rally around the new one, superseding the old paradigm as older members DIE OFF and are replaced by those who have been trained under the new paradigm.”

It is very important to engage the youth for they are not full of skepticism as the old ones are. Science simply cannot abide skepticism. Science is about belief and, above all enthusiasm for its “causes”

In Orwell’s “Animal Farm” the enthusiastic members of the new farm order would often ask the Donkey what we thought of their new “paradigm”

He would only answer: “Donkies live a long time”

They never knew what he meant by that.

Do you?

“The operative term in Hitler youth is YOUTH. Many of the more prominent denialists are either retired or close to it ”

I think Monckton made his insults out of frustration.The climate dinosaurs see that they are failing to connect to the youth. There is an important generational aspect to climate change..

Monckton is sensing that he will enter history as one of the most arrogant and dumb humans of this century.That is not a nice prospect for such a vain man and this probably made him act so extremely nasty.

I do think that the flat earth anology is a good one..I belief future generations will wonder how humanity could have reached such Moncktonian stupidity..The answer is a combination of arrogance and corruption..

btw..
I accidently misclicked and downvoted your comment Arie..
That should have been +1..

nazi’s and right wingers are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I don’t always get this left right thing

“National Socialists” were left in their name and the fact they took over industry. In fact they seem pretty much like cult communists to me as they turned their nation into a cult war machine.

Now lefties are supposed to be peacenik enviros. I think left/right is becoming less useful as a label.

Well, if you are too lazy to find out how the terms are defined, don’t come showing your ignorance here.

the point is they are not well defined at all and they are more and more meaningless. Extreme left and extreme right end up having a lot in common.

In general use they are labels used to quickly and easily discredit which is lazy.

and who put you in charge anyway?

Take the test at www.politicalcompass.org. It’s excellent and explains the positions very nicely.

I ended up dead centre on the social axis and very slightly right of center on the economic axis.

That is actually not entirely true. The Nazi version of socialism, fascism, is right of center economically, but socially dead opposite to libertarians.

Actually, Nazis opposed banks (“Jewish”) and decoupled their currency from the international community.

RE: “The Nazi version of socialism, fascism, is right of center economically"

Ahh I see, Krupp industries, as fully entitled to tell Hitler to shove it! They were simply capitialists hell-bent on making big profits for their shareholders wherever they could find them; by jove I think Ive got it!

On the other hand, Ilyushun Industries must have simply had to make armaments for Stalin and wasn’t really interested in serving its stockholders as the primary reason for its being as Krupp Industries in Hitlers Third Reich was: serving the stockholders and screw Hitler, was their motto - right?

Hey were did you learn all thus good stuff?

To me “right” ie conservative, means limited powers to government: Can you give me some great examples of how Hitler embraced this concept of “limited government” in his Third Reich?

Ive never been educated in all this “political science” stuff so Im really eager to learn all about “right wing” Hitler vs “left wing” Stalin

Nop! Nazis ferociously fought communism - they killed communist leaders such as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. And they falsely claimed communists for putting the parliament on fire. And they were racist, just the white supremcy groups, which resulted in the holocaust. How much racism is there in communism?

So, what does the “socialist” in the name mean ? Well, they cared to some extent for the poor German arians only by establishing soup kitchens in the great depression, collected warm clothing - stuff that is standard everywhere today. This socialism has nothing to do with the socialism promoted by the communists. And Hitler created a work program for the unemployed - building autobahns. Actually worse paid than a job at Wal Mart.

Interesting quote by Rosa Luxemburg: freedom is always the freedom of the dissenters. Now go and think about that.

Political education has never been a local strength of the new world. Communist, socialist, and social are usually wildly interchanged since McCcarthy. And Monckton cashes in on that lack of understanding. Commnunis - lat. together. Moncktons world communism fear promotion is totally unwarranted, simply because none of the players involved is communist. And social progress in a society, as heavily battled by selfishness (Republicans, Libertarians) has been achieved by political parties of all spectra, even conservative ones. Caring for our people is setting us apart from animals.

Nazi: shortened for catchiness from their orginal name: the NASDP

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

Translation: Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party

Yeah, this really sounds like a bunch of laissez faire libertarians who just hate big governrment.

Oh and Hitler’s “National Socialists” simply couldn’t abide Stalin’s “Soviet Socialists” because Hitler HATED the idea goverment interfering in people’s lives.

It’s much the same difference in philosophy between the Crips and the Bloods that drives their hatred for eachother. Its always all in their “philosphy” of ruling.

ie: get a life

RE: Political education has never been a local strength of the new world. Communist, socialist, and social are usually wildly interchanged since McCcarthy.

Roosevelt thought the Communists were simply a little bit more “Progressive” Democrats.

I see it this way: Socialism is the entry drug, a tumor on human freedom as it were.

On the other hand Communism is a fully metastasized cancer on freedom. Communism Kills Wholesale, Socailism with the barbed wire fences, dogs, and machine gunners added in to mow down the escapees from their would-be “workers paradise”

Of left wing groups who are losing an arguement to try and silence the other side. It’s ironic that the same democratic rights these people demand while blocking access to a logging truck, but are remise to offer the same to tohers who do not share their opinion. Intolerance at best and a deplorable spectacle that most people in the mainstream are not impressed with.

Don’t try to associate a group of activist kids with the entire scientific community – it’s classic guilt by association.

The denier science community is welcome to submit their papers for publication. But you’ll notice they don’t do that. Instead, they hold meetings which they close to the vast majority of scientists like this one.

Don’t like it do you. So stop doing it to us.

Us? Who’s us? JR, I thought you were an absolutist skeptic with no position on anything?

Monckton’s outburst is great! I wonder what his fellows in the House of Lords will have to say to him… Oh, wait. That’s right. He really doesn’t sit in it. That’s a Big Lie he tells.

All of you who throw insults, belittle and condesending at those of us who are skeptical of the claims from the True Believers in AGW.

Absolutely freaking amazing!

And Hanson compared coal being hauled by rail as “death trains”, alluding to the Nazi extermination of Jews. The above post is just another example of overheated rhetoric.

the far edge of the rabid lunatic fringe. I’m surprised that the denial industry hasn’t distanced itself from him long ago.

See Monckton looks weird and call himself Lord and calls people nazis and YET - Many in the media consider him as credible as someone like Al Gore or David Suzuki.

That means something. It means that to a very large number of people - something just doesn’t feel right about this climate thing.

No, it means many in the media just start acting like idiots when someone throws a title in front of his name. Then Monckton writes a science paper that few outside of science can understand because it’s filled with lots of fancy equations. So that cultivates an image that he’s “smart.” But when the genuine scientific community point out the obvious flaws in his paper, the media fails to pick up on it because they don’t understand it.

The Lord is a pit bull that has Al Gore running and hiding. He is ripping your butts off and you are all afraid to debate him because you no longer have an argument. That is why you have resorted standing their like monkeys calling him names. That means he wins.

You all have the opinion that the world needs saving, but the facts say that it not true.

You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts.

You cannot win, there is no man made global warming and you will not have your world government just yet.

JWest ‘there is no man made global warming’

Is there warming?

a)

It looks like it!

Similar graphs are available from HadCRUT; RSS and UAH.

What might be causing it?

Where might it be coming from?

How do we know That how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere derives from fossil-fuels?

Answer the Suess effect - the isotopic ratio 13C/12C

lives in the same fact and reality-free alternate universe that Monkton, Beck (both Glen and Ernst-Georg), Limbaugh, Will, Murphy, Watt, Inhofe, Morano, Palen, et al do.

It’s amazing how many people can be so naive, gullible, ignorant and paranoid at the same time without being even remotely aware of it.

That Monckton is a liar is well documented. He fraudulently claims to be a Nobel laureate; he pretends to sit in the House of Lords (he doesn’t, having failed to secure a single vote in 2007); he refrains, at best, from correcting propagandists like Glenn Beck when they call him a ‘former scientific advisor’ to Margaret Thatcher (in fact, he advised her on the transfer of council houses into private ownership). A failure as a politician, he has found much consolation in the unmerited attention he receives from parts of the media, where he repeats ad nauseam his fantasies of a world that is cooling and icecaps that are thickening: explicit denial of observable phenomena. So it would be fair to call him, as a matter of record, a liar and a fantasist. Now, however, I can cheerfully add ‘hypocrite’ to the charge sheet. Speaking at a fringe, anti-science event in Copenhagen sponsored by Americans for Prosperity (founded and funded by the oil company Koch Industries), Monckton found himself being upstaged by young climate protestors. His response: to call them “crazed Hitler Youth” and “Nazis”.

When I debated Monckton in Scotland in March, (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/10/how-not-to-take-on-climate-change-deniers/), I made the bad mistake of invoking ‘Godwin’s Law’: comparing the denialists’ pseudoscience with that of Dr Mengele. Outraged, Monckton demanded a retraction, which I was obliged to make.

Making analogies with Nazism is irresponsible and emotive. No decent person should do it; at least not without apologising afterwards. Monckton, of course, like the rest of the flat-earthers, regularly accuses those who are trying to save civilisation of mass murder, Stalinism, Nazism. Here he is, on record, doing just that. But then, not being a decent person, he won’t retract a thing.

Keep the comparison to the flat-earthers. The “science” the deniers consistently present is on a par with that.

Every time people like you throw out an insult it shows how utterly vacant you are of substance and intolerant.

Wrong. It is not an insult, but an excellent comparison. Those who deny man-made climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence are very similar to those in the past who denied the Earth was round. Over 97% of climate scientists have declared that they hold the view that human activity is causing global temperatures to increase resulting in a climatic shift. Those who do not support this view are showing how ignorant or how gullible they are to PR spin and ideological clap-trap (such as that spewed by FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, and other media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch).

Also, there is a profound lack of sensibility here. The “deniers” claim to be well-thinking citizens, yet they reject the expertise of those who have studied this subject for their whole careers. Instead, they jump on the intellectually-bankrupt bandwagon of conspiracy theorists, junk science-propagators, and the loudmouth twits on talk radio. If these “deniers” were consistent, they would be consulting a plumber or an electrician in regards to results of a cardiogram rather than visiting a doctor. (That wasn’t meant to insult plumbers or electricians. A doctor shouldn’t be the person to consult with on installing a bathtub or wiring your house to fit a new home entertainment system either.)

In general that makes sense to me.

The reason Glenn Beck and other loudmouth bandwagons are jumped on is because they aren’t asking us to accept some new, expensive reality. They throw doubt on authority and say, “I don’t believe you, at least not yet, I’m not buying sake oil just because it’s new on the market and comes with some official stamp of approval”

The things that cause problems are the newness and “futurist” nature of climatology. It’s all just too new and so it’s hard to have confidence in the warnings about how things will work out in 50 or 100 years.

Thalidomide was once a great thing for the future. It was too new.

My mother died as an indirect result of an asthma medication that has since been discontinued because too many people died.

If my Doctor says he has a great “new” medication. I’m wary.

That’s what is going on here.

The 97% support you cite is pure Hogwash. The agreement of 97% is for a statement so watered down that Lord Monckton would gladly agree and sign it. That means that those people support arheniuses Greenhouse affect and that man has some impact on the climate. Big deal.

What their is little scientific support for are all the alarmist claims about a tipping point and that the earths climate exists as a postive feedback loop. Which the alarmists cling to as support for all their outlandish warming claims, like the arctic free of ice and polar bears disapearing. These two facets are where the debate arrises amongst skeptics. If you we’re to ask scientists if they believe that the earths cliamte exists as a positive feedback system and we will reach a tipping point of no return I doubt you would get 50% support amongst climatologists and barely 30% amongst scientists.

Not even the global warming magnet of Wikipedia will address the tipping point as being more of a political slogan than science. These are just political arguements dressed up next to science by alarmists.

RE: “Those who deny man-made climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence are very similar to those in the past who denied the Earth was round.”

I’m one of those trogladyte “deniers” who still doesn’t “believe” the earth is “round”

RE: “Over 97% of climate scientists have declared that they hold the view that human activity is causing global temperatures to increase resulting in a climatic shift.”

Well, I’ll top that with TWO statistics of my own:

1) 99% of all astrology scientists believe the position of the stars we were born under are the most important indicators of our future.

2) 98% of all statistics are made up (not mine however)

RE: “The “deniers” claim to be well-thinking citizens, yet they reject the expertise of those who have studied this subject for their whole careers.”

Mea culpa…mea culpa…I’ve been dissing my astrologer of late and she has devoted her entire life to “studying” this subject.

As for me, Ive “studied” navels my whole life and am now a world expert on navels. Ive even written a peer-reviewed paper for policy makers on navels. If you do not have a Phd granted by a recognized college of navel gazing then of course you have no right to question our peer reviewed navel policy for policy makers.

Our policy: NO more than one navel per person. This policy came from a study that only cost the taxpayers a billion dollars - cheap.

Good question: why would anybody be tolerant towards, lets say Neonazis, i.e. groups that are totally intolerant. History teaches the opposite: Hitler took power by democratic means and then abandoned democracy through the enabling law. Modern society has learnt their lesson and in todays Germany intolerance is encountered with intolerance. Example is muslim extremism. So nothing wrong with intolerance against extremism. Society has always been intolerant towards murder and other severe crimes.

AGW are the extremists, and I’m not intolerant of them. And us skeptics can hardley be compared to any kind of extremism. We just want your side to provide the evidece to back up your extreme speculations. Yet we are insulted from your side simply by challenging your side. How fair is that?

You write:
“utterly vacant you are of substance and intolerant”

For the past several weeks I have repeatedly tried to discuss real science by establishing real common principles with various deniers on this forum. For example: do we agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

However, they have repeatedly jumped to conclusions and resorted to a chorus of “no no no – you don’t know what you’re talking about just read my blog and Dr. so-and-so knows everything so what if he has never published” nonsense. That then is followed by comments like I need to have an open mind and other verging on ad hominem attacks.

So given the fact that you just wrote “Global Warming is a religious cult,” don’t you think it is fair that just once I am permitted to compare your group to the Flat Earth Society?

No, because the evidence is clear, the planet is not flat. And those people are ultra fundementalist Christians, and I’m an atheist. Hence it is factually incorrect to be compared to them.

The evidence is clear for global warming, too. The reports available at www.ipcc.ch have documented that fact. I have read many of the reports (any a number of other scientific documents as well), and all of what is necessary to understand the basic science and basic findings. I am not a scientist, and do not understand all the science. But I trust the IPCC scientists to produce an open and honest report of the science, at all levels of the detail.

I have been challenging others for TWO YEARS (when the most recent report was produced) for climate scientists to come forward and conduct research, publish it in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and produce a scientific report that disproves the IPCC report, line by line, reference by reference. But no one has done that. Do you have the report I ask for?

Having said that – where is your proof that 1: the IPCC report is wrong (as I described above), and 2: the Earth is not flat? (You have stated that “the evidence is clear.”)

RE: “The reports available at www.ipcc.ch have documented that fact.”

The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated — Mark Twain quotation after hearing that his obituary had been published in the New York Journal.

So again just what do “reports” have to do with “facts”?

RE: “But I trust the IPCC scientists to produce an open and honest report of the science, at all levels of the detail.”

Thats OK for you because you are a leftist cultist. I dont “trust” anyone, Not the Raelian Comet Cultists, not the Global Warming Cultists, and not even my own stock broker.

So your science says “trust me on this”?

See what I mean, a religious cult — nothing more

Bruce Frykman writes:

“you are a leftist cultist.” and “See what I mean, a religious cult — nothing more”

I was hoping to discuss science. I guess that’s impossible with you. Conversation over.

“I was hoping to discuss science”

No you weren’t, not a shred of it to be seen on this entire statist blog.

Reports are not science. Science looks like this: “F = ma”
Now that can be proven or disproven within the domain in which it is purported to apply. IPCC “reports” are political propaganda written by thugs proving nothing.

Pages

[x]
fossil fuel subsidies, clean energy, better growth better climate, kris krug

Investments in renewable energies and low-carbon infrastructure can help the environment and the economy at the same time, says a comprehensive new report released Tuesday.

The report — Better Growth Better Climate...

read more