Free Markets, Free People

AGW skeptics the moral equivalent of slavery defenders

Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner brings this little goodie to our attention:

The American public is still mired in doubt about the science and the economics of climate change, he said, but is ready for the kind of social shift that eventually brought success to the abolition movement of the 18th and 19th centuries.

“Just as few people saw a moral problem with slavery in the 18th century, few people in the 21st century see a moral problem with the burning of fossil fuels,” Professor [Andrew] Hoffman [of the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources] said. “Will people in 100 years look at us with the same incomprehension we feel toward 18th-century defenders of slavery?”

So now skeptics of AGW are the moral equivalent of slavery defenders because they don’t agree that the science is there which supports the warmists view that man’s CO2 emissions are the driver of global climate change?   Really?

If people might do anything during a 100 year retrospective it will be to look askance at the rhetoric this particular issue generated from one particular side.  My guess is they’ll look at Hoffman’s analogy and shake their head in wonder at the absurdity of his claim.

I’m not sure what offends me more – Hoffman’s attempt to equate scientific skepticism with an immoral institution like slavery or his obvious ignorance of the fact that science is skepticism.

Hoffman needs to also get out more – there is little if any “social shift” in the making concerning this nonsense.  The science is not settled (in fact it is badly discredited), there is no consensus and until there is much more solid evidence from the scientific community – not some divinity school drop out and failed presidential candidate – the public isn’t going to willingly sacrifice its economic well being on some incredibly expensive scheme concocted by warmists that most likely will have no effect whatsoever on the alleged problem.

But, then, what do we slavers know.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

17 Responses to AGW skeptics the moral equivalent of slavery defenders

  • Lovely.

    The planet may or may not be melting down, but one thing for sure, the climate change movement is.

  • I wonder if Hoffman has tenure.  Even NPR would fire him for this if he worked there.

    • We find it offensive here at QandO, but I don’t imagine Hoffman would be in trouble at NPR or at U. Michigan.

      • He’d be in trouble in the Engineering College…too bad it cannot secede from the LSA “College” or as well called it “Leisure Students Association”.

  • Not only is this offensive, it’s ahistorical. There were more than a few people who thought slavery was immoral in the 18th century.

    • Let me restate that. In the 18th century, there were more than a few people who thought slavery was immoral.

      • No Steve, we don’t understand how these things work – two examples of our distorted slave holder way of thinking will demonstrate –
        Argument: White Males are evil and we want to keep non-white anybodies, and white women, from voting!  
        Which is why, when ONLY white males had the vote and the power to create law, magic occurred! and suddenly women, and non-white anybodies were, by a miraculous process, able to VOTE!!!!
        The majority of people were FOR slavery, which is why it was abolished.  Interestingly enough evil White Males seem to have had something to do with THAT too, once again, being those in power, and those who controlled the vote, and once again by a miraculous process, first in Europe and then in the US, slavery was abolished one night while the White Males weren’t looking.
        Presumably this was brought about by a minority of right thinking people like Professor Hoffman, probably after the 18th-19th century equivalent of a modern wine and brie party at the 18th-19th century equivalent of a  faculty lounge (which, I should like to point out, at the time was populated by the 18th-19th century majority population of EVIL WHITE MALES, very curious…).

  • I wonder if Hoffman powers his word processor with a bicycle generator.
    Why am I betting he thinks it’s okay if he burns fossil fuel for his needs because he’s aware it’s bad.

  • I was kinda relishing the Hitler/Stalin comparisons. I’m a little sad I’ve been downgraded to slavery defender.

  • Dang, Hoffman.  Hyperbole much?

  • I think Hoffman has this whole thing backwards.
    We are just coming off a period when skeptics were the minority view.  AGW alarmists are in the equivalent of position of defending “slavery” … the slavery to “carbon taxes”.

  • We’re making progress, now we’re just equal to denying slavery instead of the Holocaust.  That’s gotta be a marginal improvement, no?

    Keep talking bigmouths. The more you open your cakeholes, easier you make my choice.