Al Gore takes our sigantures to Bali

[biffvernon]

Invoking Vogons in an internet debate is a variation on Godwin's Law.

 

[Penners]

Surely it's Nemesis's mention of Hitler that entirely validates Godwin's Law.

 

[Nemesis]

Thank Penners ! And Biff!
I was wondering when Godwin's Law would be evoked.

It's surely a first on PPUK?




And oh - resistance is surely useless?

 

[Moo]

For those who, like me, haven't a clue what Godwin's Law is, here's what I found on Wikipedia :

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, especially fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.

 

[Nemesis]

Quite.

 

[Penners]

He was a wag, that Godwin, eh?

 

[biffvernon]

The Vogon variation hasn't hit Wiki (yet).

 

[Nemesis]

Anyhow, I rather think that Godwin's Law is more to do with likening a fellow poster to Hitler, and as yet I haven't.

Not saying I won't, but when I do the thread stops and no-one posts any more.

That's the theory at least.

The step before that is when I link to this.

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq07-fwit.html

10. What is Godwin's Law?
This states that if one participant in a discussion calls another a Nazi or compares them to Hitler, the thread has degenerated into personal abuse and there is no possibility of further rational discussion, the thread is therefore dead and no one should post any more messages in it. If anyone ignores this and does continue posting, they should not be replied to.

Exceptions:

1. Godwin's Law may not be invoked deliberately and so any attempt to use it purely to kill a thread should be ignored.

2. Godwin's Law does not apply when one party genuinely is a Nazi.

Godwin's Law is a hangover from a time when Usenet was much smaller and discussion tended to be a bit more civil and courteous than is the norm these days. That's not to say it is outdated and shouldn't be observed. The principle is still valid - once personal abuse takes over, rational debate is impossible.

Here's a bit more Monbiot:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

And as for Vogons:

Vogons. They had no intention to exterminate anybody.

Weeeell - whatever the intention, they did exterminate.

Vogons

Here is what to do if you want to get a lift from a Vogon: forget it. They are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy - not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

The best way to get a drink out of a Vogon is to stick your finger down his throat, and the best way to irritate him is to feed his grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

On no account allow a Vogon to read poetry at you.

[Open Image] [Hosted by PhotoGalaxy.com]


Unlike the Daleks I agree, who positively sought to exterminate, but the end result was surely the same?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/vogon.shtml

As for those berries - here's Garden Law (now why is it that site remembers me but this one doesn't?):

http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=58722&sid=e88de2d6dc712ca941788c2922384309

 

[Nemesis]

And here's a little wider reading which may or may not be agreed with by all:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/13/ethicalliving.carbonfootprints

 

[biffvernon]

A pity that Chris Goodall doesn't look at the supply side. Any personal action that does not result in carbon remaining unburnt has zero effect on climate change (though it may have other useful effects). While demand for oil is greater than supply all possible production will be used, with one person's savings being consumed by someone else.

 

[Nemesis]

Bit of nourishment in the thinking dept here too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/01/ethicalliving.g2

 

[Flyfisher]

Any personal action that does not result in carbon remaining unburnt has zero effect on climate change (though it may have other useful effects). While demand for oil is greater than supply all possible production will be used, with one person's savings being consumed by someone else.

So, short of stockpiling barrels of oil to prevent them being consumed, is it actually possible for anyone to to do anything to prevent any fossil fuels being burned by someone else?

Perhaps Mr Bush is not as daft as he's often portrayed? Why volunteer to reduce standards of living and damage the economy when it would, based on the above, make zero contribution to fossil fuel induced global warming?

"Global population is now six billion and is projected to be 11 billion by 2050," says Nick Reeves, executive director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. "Scratch the surface of any environmental problem and it reveals population growth, and the way we live our lives, as the root cause. The need for a population policy has never been more urgent."

I've used to be worried about a figure of 9bn by 2050; 11bn is even scarier!

 

[Penners]

Any personal action that does not result in carbon remaining unburnt has zero effect on climate change

A lot of negatives there, but I wonder whether they actually add up to the intended meaning.

If I start my car engine, this is a personal action that does not result in carbon remaining unburnt. But it surely doesn't have zero effect on climate change.

Or am I missing something?

 

[biffvernon]

Any personal action that does not result in carbon remaining unburnt has zero effect on climate change

A lot of negatives there, but I wonder whether they actually add up to the intended meaning.

If I start my car engine, this is a personal action that does not result in carbon remaining unburnt. But it surely doesn't have zero effect on climate change.

Or am I missing something?

Yep, I should have said 'Any personal action, designed to reduce climate change by fuel saving, that does not result in carbon remaining unburnt has zero effect on climate change.'

 

[Flyfisher]

I read it as meaning that if you don't use your car then the oil that you save would be used by someone else anyway (obviously not the fuel in your car's tank, hence my point above about stockpiling), so your good intentions have absolutely no effect on fossil fuel induced climate change.

Biff seems to be saying that all the oil in production will be burned whether we give up cars or flying or only buy locally produced food and as far as climate change is concerned it makes no difference where that oil is burned.

Actually, the thought occurs that perhaps it's better that the limited oil is burned in the 'west' because at least we have strong legislation for 'clean burn' engine technologies and we are likely to make more efficient use of the precious stuff than a poorly maintained put-put in India.

Biff may have a point about the only good oil being oil that is kept in the ground. I just don't see how this will ever happen.

So, perhaps it's for the best that the more technologically advanced nations get to use as much oil as they need in order to develop the new technologies we'll need for our energy when fossil fuels are really severely depleted. After all, an energy-intensive country like the USA is surely going to have a much greater vested interest (and capability?) in developing new energy-rich-lifestyle-sustaining technologies than a 3rd world country struggling to even feed its own population.

Or am I also missing something?

 

[Penners]

OK, Biff - gotcha.

 

[biffvernon]

So, short of stockpiling barrels of oil to prevent them being consumed, is it actually possible for anyone to to do anything to prevent any fossil fuels being burned by someone else?

I guess not. A very inconvenient truth. One might usefully act indirectly by campaigning amongst the powers that be to get the black stuff left underground.

Perhaps Mr Bush is not as daft as he's often portrayed?

Now that's pushing things a bit too far.

Why volunteer to reduce standards of living and damage the economy when it would, based on the above, make zero contribution to fossil fuel induced global warming?

Good question. That's exactly what our government is about to do with it's Shadow Carbon Price. The arguement is, following Stern, that a little pain now is better than a lot of pain later. By spending on carbon reduction now one reduces the losses that will result from climate change in the future. My point is that this is necessary but insufficient. If the policy is not accompanied by succesful efforts to keep the carbon in the ground then it will come to nought.

"Global population is now six billion and is projected to be 11 billion by 2050," says Nick Reeves, executive director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. "Scratch the surface of any environmental problem and it reveals population growth, and the way we live our lives, as the root cause. The need for a population policy has never been more urgent."

I've used to be worried about a figure of 9bn by 2050; 11bn is even scarier!

That figure implies that the 'demographic transition' is not going to happen as widespreadly as most models predict. It might be true but it makes involuntary die-off all the more likely.

 

[Penners]

it's better that the limited oil is burned in the 'west' because at least we have strong legislation for 'clean burn' engine technologies and we are likely to make more efficient use of the precious stuff than a poorly maintained put-put in India.

I'm not sure about that.

The efficient, 'clean-burn' engine in the Western car will arguably produce a more complete combustion of the oil. The 'putt-putt', on the other hand, will exhaust more unburned hydrocarbons.

So won't the clean-burn engine produce more CO2, and the putt-putt leave some carbon unburned?

 

[Flyfisher]

Re: Penners:
Fair point, but what if the more efficient engine gets more mpg than the put-put? (thinks . . . ) but that's probably unlikely because of the relative engine sizes, so perhaps an inefficient but small-engined put-put is better than a 2.5-litre BMW. But what about bigger stuff like railways and lorries and power stations?

Re: Biff:

If the policy is not accompanied by succesful efforts to keep the carbon in the ground then it will come to nought.

That's the bit I have a big problem with. I really can't imagine how such a thing could ever be agreed. Unless there is some sort of overnight breakthrough with fusion power finally delivering its promise of low-cost abundant energy, no country is ever going to let the oil stay in the ground.

 

[biffvernon]

I think you're right about the oil. It's pretty hard to see in not being used. It's just too useful.

Coal is another story though. It's mostly used for electricity generation and we do have a lot alternative renewable ways of making electricity. Here it come down to whether the new technologies can be built fast enough to keep the coal in the ground.

Burning all the oil could still result in CO2 levels staying below 450ppm. Burning coal pushes the level into more dangerous territory so we should concentrate on both what is possible and what is most dangerous. So policy should be directed at energy savings and roll out of sustainable electricity generation, keeping coal in the ground.

When it comes to saving oil, I don't see that as a climate thing. It's more about reducing our dependency on something we won't be able to afford. PeakOil is a much more imminent threat than climate change. PeakOil threatens the global economy in the next very few years while global warming is a problem for after the current world leaders are mostly dead.