Several warmists have in the past made the comparison between global warming and slavery (here and here), claiming that there is a moral equivalence. I suspect it has more to do with an excuse for higher government control, as James Hansen makes the comparison.
He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an “injustice of one generation to others”.
How does Hansen suggest we approach such a “moral issue”?
Hansen said his proposal for a global carbon tax was based on the latest analysis of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and their impact on global temperatures and weather patterns.
A global tax would be the most unprecedented, oppressive big government measure ever imposed on the world. Equating the supposed problem with slavery goes a long way towards justifying this level of control.
For Abraham Lincoln, the decision to override the right of the states to make their own laws on the issue of slavery stemmed from a much greater right. In his Gettysburg Address, he repeats a fundamental truth that was previously solidified in the Declaration of Independence.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The fight against slavery was a fight for justice, to establish the most highest of truths. The fight to cut carbon dioxide emissions has all the hallmarks of a power grab, justified with spurious evidence.
Our parents didn’t know that they were causing a problem for future generations but we can only pretend we don’t know because the science is now crystal clear.
[...]Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency.
Climate models cannot be used as evidence as they are merely simulations of the real world. Only empirical data can give us a picture of reality. As George Box said:
All models are wrong. Some are useful.