Global warming skeptics support slavery

Posted by: Phineas on October 28, 2010 at 9:31 pm

Don’t take my word for it; ask the guy with the PhD. According to Dr. Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan, those of us who don’t support the (increasingly shot full of holes) theory of anthropogenic global warming are the moral equivalent of those who defended slavery:

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 Hoffman said. “Will people in 100 years look at us with the same incomprehension we feel toward 18th-century defenders of slavery?”

So, let’s see. In recent years, those of us who are skeptical of climate change as anything other than a poorly understood series of natural cycles have been called “deniers,” a deliberate comparison to Holocaust denial; we’ve been labeled traitors to the planet; and it’s been suggested we be put on trial. I’m sure I’m forgetting something. Regardless, having resorted all these smear cards, why not deal the “slavery card,” too? It’s an easy way to delegitimize the skeptics, make one feel all warm and superior inside, and keeps Green Statists from having to deal with the actual science.

I could go on a real rant here, but The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway beat me to it. I’ll give him the final word on our Enlightened Moral Superior:

I don’t know what’s more offensive, the idea that skepticism of global warming is a moral injustice on par with slavery, or the fact that those people pushing global warming think of themselves in such incredibly self-righteous terms where they’re the ones saving humanity from itself. If Environmentalists wonder why their credibility is shot, perhaps they should stop with the doomsday propaganda and come up with a better solution to the global warming problem than making my monthly utility bills cost more than the gross national product of Burkina Faso.

My only disagreement is that there is no global warming problem at all. Other than that, spot on.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.


17 Responses to “Global warming skeptics support slavery”


  1. Carlos says:

    I wonder if this yoyo ever considered that the AGWers of the world were the ones attempting to set up the real plantation replete with slaves (those of us stupid enough not to believe their phony hokey science.)

    Nah. Too obvious to brilliant minds like his.

  2. Old Goat says:

    Something I’ve always been pondering… Just how many frickin’ dinosaurs lived on this planet to have given us so much oil all over it?

    Being that they are extinct, were they also liberal progressives that just destroyed themselves?

    The thing with global warming, I’m not against reducing the pollution we put into the air. I just don’t see how the gas we use is destroying the planet when you compare the crap that is spewed from one volcanic eruption is far worse and yet the damage to the ozone actually gets better. Once they can explain that, then we can talk.

  3. Randall says:

    What’s immoral, is ignoring the reality that petroleum and carbon-based activity has dragged over a billion people around the world – kicking and screaming – from their poverty. It has turned many a backwater into productive, inhostile land in which to live, work, and raise a family.

  4. Yooper says:

    Andy… are you sure you’re not a MSU grad?

    Come up to the UP sometime where it’s too cold to snow!

    If you’d really like to do something useful, go end the slavery that still exists today… at least you’d be earning your salary with honest work.

  5. anon says:

    You have to appreciate the epic Godwin here. Hitler, slavery, smoking all in the same construction!

  6. Lawrence says:

    Like many other ‘true believers’ of AGW, his opinion reeks of desperation. When your science is weak, go personal. Pathetic.

  7. Steve Skubinna says:

    Sorry, what was that? I was concentrating on this delicious feast of roast Third World baby here, washed down with the distilled tears of environmentalists. Love to stick around, but I have to get back to forcing women to carry fetuses to term and keeping them out of college and the workforce… and then, those damned rain forests aren’t going to clear cut themselves, are they?

    You’d think these clowns would just give up in despair. I mean, really, if we’re all that evil, do they really think they can shame us into doing what they want? Would they have scolded Hitler with “You know, you’re acting just like a Nazi, Mister Hitler Dude!”

    Yeah, maybe they would have.

    Hey man, I’m just freakin’ evil, and I’m not going to be swayed by your niceness. Eeeeeeeeevil! Yeah, now go away before I rip out your liver and feed it to your family.

  8. Mike says:

    Hoffman’s point is that good people could not see the problem of slavery just as today many ordinary people don’t understand what we are doing to our climate and oceans. I don’t think the analogy is an especially strong one, but it is not as intrinsically offensive as some are trying to make it out to be.

    The comparison with denial of the dangers of tobacco is much more valid as the deniers where mostly harming themselves. The initial inaction of the Reagan Administration on AIDS also comes to mind. An historical comparison I would make is that in the 1930’s economists like Keynes advocated forgiving Germany’s WWI debt fearing Germany would collapse. You know what happened next. Sometimes the experts are right.


    Keep an open mind.

  9. SteveA says:

    Phineas is right guys. Andy notes how hard it is to change ingrained beliefs. One need only look at the AGW movement to see that this is true. What is truly amazing is that Andy is REALLY talking about himself (and those like him) but is totally oblivious.

  10. sunsettommy says:


    for a man with all that college education.All he can do with counterpoints against skeptics are name calling and ad homonyms.

    That is what I would expect from a 10 year old,but a middle age man?

    Very feeble…..


  11. mchughjj says:

    To Mike (#8) and specifically “many ordinary people don’t understand what we are doing to our climate and oceans”:

    Sorry, but many, many scientists in fields that are relevant to the subject at hand dismiss the certainty of the “science” that has been handed down from on high by the IPCC, etc.

    Facts that are sympathetic to your cause:

    – The earth warmed from ~1980-1998 (and for much of the first half of the 20th century)
    – The man-made contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased, somewhat exponentially, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
    – The greenhouse gas theory isn’t bunk

    Unfortunately, despite the state of affairs being maybe a little concerning ten years ago, the above points prove nothing, and an objective scientist can assert that it has become increasingly unlikely that we’re on the edge of a cliff, to understate things.

    Climate remains a poorly understood phenomenon, and extrapolations of climate models are effectively useless.

  12. Peter D says:

    Worked in a third world country in 2001 for big oil. There was a problem with indentured fishermen, they were like slaves. Big oil moved to buy the slaves out and free them, but the Green NGO’s stopped that with applied pressure in the USA. Turns out the Greens supported the slaver because they hated big oil more. Hoffman does not know what he is talking about.

  13. Mike says:

    @mchughjj: Denial is a hard habit to kick. As you know the over whelming majority of climatologists believe there is strong evidence for AGW and that on our current course we will almost certainly face dangerous and permanent climate change lasting for thousands of years. While a handful disagree – you can find a handful of biologists who deny evolution – there is not a single professional scientific society that refutes this.

    Just because there are nutty green groups out there does not mean the science is wrong. I’m still fuming at the greens for opposing nuclear power. Keep ideology out of science. That applies to the Left and the Right.

  14. Rob says:

    1. Plimer’s book as your “science” link? Hilarious! If Plimer’s competent to write about climate science, I’m competent to perform brain surgery.

    2. While I DO NOT agree with Hoffman’s analogy, that analogy is not that AGW skeptics support slavery or are equivalent to those who supported slavery. The analogy is with the extant paradigm (slavery, burning of fossil fuels) not being evaluated as morally wrong. This is not at all the same thing, thus you’ve set up a straw man.

  15. AtlasWillShrug says:

    Funny how people who demand to see actual non-fabricated, non-simulated data that are measurable and predictive are said to be like pro-slave Southerners. It seems to me that the GW proponents who argue consensus rather than data have much more in common with lemmings and churchmen of the Middle Ages. They are literally saying, “We don’t need no stinking data, we have a Papal declaration that the world is flat and sits at the center of the universe”. “We can fabricate any data we need”. Just ask those GW “scientists” whos emails were hacked a year ago or so.

    When there is so much government grant money to be won by producing preconceived outcomes, why bother with skepticism that used to be the hallmark of scientific research. Mark Twain wrote, “If you find yourself among the majority, its time to worry.” The precious consensus in this case, as in Twain’s quote, is not the result of honesty or truth.

    The pro-slavery people were in reality the consensus people. Their argument was to take a small piece of Scripture out of context and rely on the fact that “everyone knows….slavery is a moral good”. The GW religionists do the same thing and then point fingers at honest skepticism. How do you argue with pseudo-religious GW zealots? How do you reason with an earwig or a flea?

    Science is not immune to the influence of pseudo- religious sanctimony and government self-interest. What better way to get people to go along with your desire to run their lives than to use tax dollars to buy some “experts” who will cry, “the sky is falling”. When you have as much money as Uncle Sugar, you can buy a whole bunch “scientific” consensus. We never really know much about the individual scientists or the quality of their research data. Instead we hear from experts like Ted Dansen, Ted Turner and Al Gore. Not exactly a brain trust of scientific ablility there. Perhaps good enough for the lemmings and the spiritually frustrated looking for a new cult to join.

  16. SteveA says:

    @Mike 13 – How many times do we have to cover this ground? Consensus is a politically term, not a scientific one. It does not matter if all scientists but 1 believe in CAGW. If that 1 scientist can display data that finds fault with the working hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be revised. To date, much data has found fault with the working hypothesis. Instead of acknowledging the findings, engaging those scientists who produced the data, and revising the theory, the “consensus” has closed ranks, declared that the heretics be tried for criminal acts, and continue to stand by their belief in climatism. this is not the way of science, these are the characteristics of dogma.