The former makes a statement defending slavery because it allegedly improves the lives of the slaves over that they would have enjoyed in Africa. This is a non-sequitur. The truth or falsehood of his statement has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong to own slaves. For arguments sake we can agree that they were better off but still think slavery wrong.

In contrast Senator James Inhofe’s statement is in line with a debate on determining the best policy to deal with global warming – adaption or prevention. If he is right, then adaption is the best policy. If he is wrong, prevention is the best policy.

Slavery denies the opportunity. Wasn’t that the point?

Got to agree that your response to it was silly though.

Capability and opportunity are two different things.

While the slavery/oil analogy is silly, so is this response to it.

More and more, as I read the IPCC documents, the whole thing is so entirely preposterous, that it stinks of a circus carnival scam.

The slavery metaphor is yet another example of the sleight of hand. The way it works is that you propose an absurd thing, as in “CO2 is the worst gas in the world and will flood the planet”. Now, before you even open your mouth to argue with that statement, I say “and if you disagree with me, then you are a slave owner, and a Nazi and probably a pedophile”.

Not much more to argue at that point?

See, in a carnival show or magic trick, the way to get the audience to believe something is to distract their attention, or refocus it on something probable. They end up “going along” with the trick because they see, or hear something that seems to make sense, and that lets the magician trick the audience.

That, in a nutshell, is what AGW is all about.

Davidson has another big problem with his argument: the claims made about slavery were not that preposterous. The end of slavery did cause economic collapse. The end of slavery did uproot society. With the death of slavery came the death of 3% of America’s population (960,000), and 18% of all white men in the South. It cost an estimated $2.5 million a day (in 1860’s numbers), and by 1904 the United States government had spent some 3.4 billion dollars on reconstruction and veteran’s benefits. Furthermore, Southern infrastructure was totally destroyed: railroads, telegraphs, dockyards, plantations, and roads were all destroyed (think of Sherman’s march to Atlanta). Due to the emancipation of Slaves alone, United States cotton production fell 94%.

Of course, with historical hindsight we can look back at the destruction of a nation, economic collapse, and the death of thousands was worth the end product. (No slavery.) Davidson’s problem is that he cannot ensure that the means will justify the ends in this case. I have argued that the means proposed to solve the climate change “crisis” really don’t solve much at all. If he cannot justify such means (as I contend) than why would we risk death, destruction, and economic freefall as a viable solution?

Demesure.