Explaining the actions we must take to save the planet from CO2, Bill McKibben provides evidence to support Godwin’s Law:
Now, these are three of the hardest tasks we’ve even thought about since we took on Hitler.
In case you are not familiar with the law, it is sometime expressed this way:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a invoking Hitler approaches one.
For more information visit Wikipedia.
Hat tip: Michael E. Zimmerman writing at Roger Pielke Jr.s blog.
To be fair to Bill (who is a pretty nice guy in person), Godwin only applies in cases where you are comparing your opponents to Nazis. Comparing the transition to a clean economy to the war mobilization that took place during World War II is a permissible (albeit somewhat poor) analogy. I recall watching someone more recently compare it to the cold war, as in a long-term commitment to a less immediate (but still significant) threat, which I thought was a slightly more apt analogy, though no historical comparison is perfect.
Zeke–
I think CO2 is the opponent compared to Hitler.
Bill probably is a nice guy. The problem with Hitler or Nazi references is that it brings up too much emotion.
That said, I’ve brought up Nazi’s when discussing difference in laws governing freedom of speech in the US and most parts of the world. I think this bothered Boris at the time. (I think it was Boris.) But the “Nazi’s march in Skokie” legal battle was a big issue when I was graduating from highschool. I have Jewish friends living near Skokie. The case highlights just how strong our legal protections for speech are.
For better or worse, cold war analogies don’t invoke Goodwin’s law. Goodwin’s law doesn’t say people who bring up Nazi’s are necessarly bad. Just that the probability that this will be brought up approaches 1.
There should be a corollary to Godwin’s law that says that the probability someone will mention Godwin’s law when Nazis/Hitler are invoked is 1. 😉
Seriously, what is it with activists and metaphors of this time? It merely amounts to what I would personally call disgusting hyperbole.
That should be “metaphors of this type”
I try to stick to this rule:
.
He who invokes Hitler first automatically loses the argument.
The following phrases say exactly the same thing:
Since we took on Hitler
Since we took on the Nazis
Since we fought against the Axis
Since we entered WW2
Do they all breach Godwin’s Law?
Nick–
The ones that say “Hitler” and “Nazis” breach Goodwin’s law.
And as Zeke got wrong (only applies if you’re comparing your opponent to Hitler), and Lucia hinted at, Godwin’s Law is completely value-free – a cold statistic.
The only position I’ve heard Godwin take is that there are times when the Reducto Ad-Hitlerum is appropriate, but his law guarantees that it will be progressively more diluted as a discussion, thread, whatever, gets larger and longer.
Lucia,
I don’t get the post. I have taken the time to peruse the McKibbin article. This is just another iteration of “we’re all going to fry” Hansen drivel. Not only that, it highlights the very scary fundamentals of the authoritarian thinking underpinning the approach to any issue that doesn’t fit their view of the world: we know best and if you think differently, we’ll find a way of sending you to the salt mines [that is, on a good day and if we are in a good mood…].
As Einstein argued in his discourse about the extremes meeting at where the ring closes, totalitarianism comes in many forms, apparently from opposite ends of the spectrum, but all essentially and fundamentally intolerant. McKibbin and his patron saint Hansen are right in the sweet spot. A waste of time and space.
Tetris–
It’s just an observations of Goodwin’s law. Simply making extreme evocative posts doesn’t invoke Goodwin’s law. Invoking Hitler does.
I’m just observing it happened.
Slightly OT, but is there a “named” law that applies to the appearance of the phrase- “We put a man on the Moon, surely we can____ (fill in the blank)?
I think Hansen got there a long time ago, with his Nazi-esque references to coal-carrying trains being ‘death trains’.
And, as we are seeing today, the group that invokes Nazi-esque hyperbole to either sell their point or to stifle dissagreement, is usually the group that will actuall emply the methods and tactics of what they claim to be fighting.
By the way, if you think Bill’s 350 target is wildly overoptimistic, wait till you see http://target300.org/.
.
I’m almost tempted to make a “Save the Earth 280” site for some metasnark.
.
One of my pet issues a few years back (when I was focusing a bit more on economics) was just how difficult stabilization at 450 would be (550 would still be tough, but more realistic). Just think, all those enormous things in the Socolow and Pascala wedges only lead to stabilizing emissions, not concentrations. Imagine what would need to be done to limit things at 350!
In the AR4, the most extreme mitigation prominently scenario examined still yielded 450 ppm CO2e concentrations at stabilization (350-400 ppm CO2 only), but that was associated with a 2015-2020 peaking date in global emissions and global declines of around 60% by 2050 and over 100% (!) by 2100.
Zeke–
I agree people tend to underestimate how difficult it would be to hold concentrations to some stable value. In my opinion the unrealistic ideas of what’s required is shared equally among the ‘Hell-in-a-handbasket heaters’, ‘lukewarmers’ and “stone-cold it’s the sun coolers’.
On the “heater’ end, they think we can get there by doing little more than installing solar panels on roofs, building some windturbines (but not where they would be ugly), tighteing our belt, just a little and presto! Problem solved without discussing the need for baseline capacity using a method that begins with “N”.
If you bring up nuclear, some will say they aren’t against it. But most studiously avoid volunteering the method when they include a list including a huge number of “right” methods– like bicycle paths.
On the ‘cooler end’ people won’t buy the notion that it’s best to at least begin to reduce emissions while learning more. With at least some of these people, we might get some action if the proposed methods featured nuclear capacity prominently as opposed to some aside suggesting it would be tolerable after all else has failed.
Lucia,
The UK’s ‘Committee on Climat Change Report’ (2008)does state that the case for nuclear power deployment is strong (if the risks are presumed acceptable), though recognising that it is likely to be constrained by feasible build rate. In terms of current actions I think it’s reasonable to emphasise, for example, the improvement of our housing stock, since this could have an effect over a shorter time period than applies to nuclear build. I’d agree, though, that nuclear is an essential part of energy planning.
The prospects for micro-reactors also seem potentially exciting –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
Simon–
There is a lot to be said in favor of improving housing stock. Many communities in the US have been improving building codes to require more insulation, better windows, less infiltration and to generally reduce the need consume as much energy to survive Illinois winters (and summers too.)
This has actually been going on since the 70s and has been motivated by both the high price of energy (at times) and the desire to be greener. Of setting that, houses have become bigger and bigger! (Still, with proper architeture, large houses can be fairly efficient.)
Doing all this is definitely beneficial. But, it won’t be enough to keep CO2 concentrations level. We baseload capacity and your children and grandchildren will want it too!
Lucia,
The debate over nuclear has undeniably shifted over the past few years, with the green movement deeply divided (rather than outright opposed) to it. I personally think nuclear power has a lot of things going for it (primarily energy density and consistency). That said, I’m still not entirely convinced that the economics of nuclear makes sense. Nuclear plants invariably go way over budget during construction, that these budgetary overruns are not only due to local opposition slowing things down. There was a good MIT report the other year (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/) that took a balanced approach to analyzing the challenges and opportunities for future development.
My preference is simply to set a price on carbon that takes into account its expected social cost (though agreeing on that will be tough!), and let the market sort out which power source makes the most sense. It could be nuclear, gas, coal with CCS, wind, solar, or something else! In reality, it will probably be what our friend Bill McKibben called “silver buckshot” the other year, rather than a single “silver bullet” technology. Having the government pick technological winners a-priori is a potential recipe for disaster.
Zeke–
I didn’t mean to suggest specialists don’t bring up nuclear energy. I meant to suggest that AGW activists at blogs and forums seems to studiously avoid the issue. Likely, this is because it is an issue that can fragment the coalition between those who are mostly concerned about global warming and those who are, either put it on an equal footing or below other eco-issues.
But, in the meantime, we make little progress on developing program to solve the CO2 issue in a way that also permits us to sustain the type of lifestyle many members of the public prefer.
On the more nuclear specific issue: I have nothing against deploying all technologies.
This sounds about correct to me. I think we need to invest some public money to resolve these issues. They can be resolved if we are willing to take on that task. Resolving these issues needs to be given just as much a priority as research to improve solar, wind or geothermal energy sources. Certainly, resolving this issue is at least as urgent as building more bicycle paths (suggested by Nathan in his list that excluded the “N” word— and for that matter, better public transportation.)
Fair enough. Though its not like there is much of a risk of all federal R&D going to wind in solar.
http://www.hillheat.com/files/0716-nat-sub-webSOLAR1.jpg
In general, there is no need to consider energy R&D to be anywhere close to zero sum, given how tiny it is compared to other R&D expenditures and how much it will likely need to grow in the near future.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/29/business/1030-nat-ENERGY2-for-web.gif
Zeke and Simon-
As long as this post was triggered by McKibben’s article, I think it’s worth noting that he does not discuss Nuclear energy.
http://www.countercurrents.org/mckibben181208.htm
MInd you, maybe he likes it; maybe he doesn’t. But, in typical fashion, the technology discussed is solar. I have nothing against solar.
Hitler appeared at word 1708 out of a total of 3178. At least he got through 53.7% of the article before it got the better of him and Godwin intervened
This one got in early
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25104720-29277,00.html
There you go! More Hitler and climate change.
Lol, Jensen is quite a one – “Dr Jensen today launched an online petition which says the world is not warming at an unusual rate, and emissions trading should not go ahead.” What do the scientists know? Let’s have an online petition!
Actually, there should be a Law about mentioning Einstein too….
Simon–
There should be some law about people arguing by comparing themselves to Einstein (or Feynman for that matter.)
Still, all Godwin’s law says is that the probability Hitler or Nazi’s will be mentioned approaches one as conversations gets longer and longer. People want to add correlaries, but the correlaries don’t always apply. ( For example, sometimes it’s appropriate to compare your opponents to Hitler. Given our legal history, you can’t fully explain the US approach to freedom of speech without discussing Nazis. )
Now, as far as web laws go: Einstein isn’t always mentioned. But I can testify to Hitler cropping up everywhere. If you think some Hitler doesn’t crop up in all long web conversations, google “knitting nazi”.
Oh.. and get this:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24050417-5013016,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6156952,00.jpg
Hitler is everywhere.
Lucia
” sometimes it’s appropriate to compare your opponents to Hitler”
Not unless your opponents actually are Hitlers.
As an long-time observer of Usenet, I can tell you that appropriate analogies to Nazi Germany were never a problem. The Hitler card was played in disputes over the best programming languare and the morality of lap dancing. Goodwin’s Law is simply an observation that in any contentious discussion, there was always someone who would try to end discussion by choosing the nuclear option and play the Hitler card. The object is never to argue from analogy – it is simply to end discussion with the worst possible ad hominem attack.
When Hansen goes to Europe and tells Germans that coal trains are death trains (!), he would argue that he is simply making an appropriate analogy. He is not. He is demanding obedience. Analogies to totalitarian behavior may have there place, but internet message boards – and science disputes – are not it. If a legitimate argument can’t be made without resorting to the Big H, then somone needs to stop and think about what they’re trying to say.
MarkB–
I agree that it’s only appropriate if your opponents are Hitler-like. During internet debates, the usages are rarely appropriate!
The reason I brought up the example of appropriate use of Nazi’s in discussions of the US first amendment is there literally was a legal battle over whether or not the American Nazi party could march in Skokie Illinois The incident eventually inspired this scene in The Blues Brothers:
The legal battle took during my final years in highschool. To a large extent, the American Nazi’s legal victory ultimately killed the party itself.
I agree that Hansen’s Nazi references do not fall under the “Illinois Nazi’s March In Skokie” exemption for fair use of Nazi allusions on the internet.