Godwin's law and Global Warming

As many of you know, I am familiar with the concept of Godwin's Law. Put simply, Godwin's Law acts as a warning to anyone who, in the process of putting forth and argument or criticising someone or something, uses the analogy of Nazism and/or Adolf Hitler.

One of the most prominent areas that Godwin's Law is being ignored is in the "debate" over Global Warming. People like me, who accept the expertise of 99.9% of climatologists, believe that anyone who denies global warming is essentially denying reality. In response, global warming deniers are more than happy to smear reasonable people like myself by calling us "Nazis". How about this for an example:

[Y[ou know, Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government.

You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming....

Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists that say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did.

The problem with using Nazi analogies is that, according to Godwin's Law, the first person to do so has essentially lost the argument. Unable to argue effectively with facts, the person's only recourse is to smear and insult. The fact that so many global warming deniers are calling people like me "Nazis" is because they either don't have the brains to mount an effective counter argument or they don't have the testicular fortitude to admit they're wrong.

P.S. If you're reading this, and are a global warming doubter, then click here to read the evidence, which is presented in a factual, objective and scientific manner by a reputable American science magazine.