In 1990 Internet Lawyer and writer Mike Godwin gave the world Godwin's law, stating that:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.The rise and rise of Internet Climate 'sceptic' nonsense means it's time for an update.
Gore's Law
As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.Have a look. This Hot-Topic thread begins to Gore after about 21 comments. While this Poneke thread is Gored badly almost from the start. There's plenty of Goring going on in this thread too. And some organisations, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute have grabbed both horns, so to speak, and Gore right from the outset.
Here's a hint. Al Gore could be short, evil and fond of child sacrifice. He could emit more CO2 snoring at night than Christopher Monckton does all year. And his movie could be even more inaccurate than the Great Global Warming Swindle. But this wouldn't change a thing. What matters is not Al Gore's character but science. And, in the case of climate change, it's awfully compelling.
[Update: And, not willing to wait until the comments box, David Farrar Gores hard right at the outset in his latest piece of climate blather.]
11 comments:
I like this law a lot. Well I don't like the fact of it, but I like that you have pointed out its existence. If that makes sense. Well put Terence.
Thanks Julie :)
You forgot to mention the denialist "2008 International Conference on Climate Change" held in March in New York. The conference's main message (as spread around in wingnut sources) was that John Coleman is going to sue Al Gore.
-- bi, Global Dumbing
Thanks Bi,
I almost included that conference. I wonder whether it should go under 'no ball' or 'out'?
Definitely have seen the attacks on Gore increase, especially in this discussion Is Global Warming a Hoax? on BlogCatalog. Not a whole lot of science being quoted by the skeptics.
thanks E&E. it was the prevalence of ad-Gorenums over science that made me think of the law...
To "earth & economy" - I'd be happy to point out bad science galore by Gore. But, there are any amount of websites that do a creditable job of doing this. I am not a "denialist", although that's what people would label me. Labels are easier to handle :-). I'm a wants-to-know-the-truth-ist.
I'll stop about now before we get onto more interesting things :-)
Russell
Oh the post-modern irony - my post on Gore's law just got Gored...
This "Gore's Law" idea looks to me like an attempt to poison the well against people who can correctly identify an example of environmentalist hypocrisy, and insulate from blame that very same hypocrite.
And the science? I'd like to see the "science" backing the idea that people should use government (that is, guns and violence) to criminalize the use of one technology, and steal money to fund the development of another.
"people should use government"
Nice strawman there.
Rather than attacking the messenger, why not address the message?
The science of CO2-moderated global warming is based on 100+ years of independently validated research. It was understood that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere when the deniers' favorite whipping boy was in elementary school.
On the Shoulders of Giants: Svante Arrhenius
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground (1896)
The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide (1932)
Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate (1956)
On the Influence of Changes in the CO2 Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth's Surface and on the Climate (1963)
The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model (1975)
Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum
Basic Radiation Calculations
Political ideology, vapid conspiracy notions & prideful ignorance does not overturn the accumulated scientific knowledge.
The one thing that strikes me as to how people view Global cooling/warming, which in of its' self happens naturally, is how we think we have such a definite answer as to what the climate is really doing. So many think that in a 100 years of solid data and say 200 years of data, we can without a shadow of a doubt say that this is what is going to happen. When in fact the past century or two is just a fraction of time over the whole course of this eraths exsistance. On a time line our knowledge spans about a hairs width worth of time.
Post a Comment