Perhaps, but neither of your examples show that. They just show a portion of society feeling the need to do something and imposing it on everybody else.

> I was demonstrating how the American refusal to cooperate led to a civil war

Yes, exactly: refusal to cooperate, according to my definition of cooperate--work together to achieve a common goal--because the American abolitionists had a flawed concept of "cooperate". The British were willing to cooperate (in my sense) with the slaveowners, by buying the slaves' freedom, in order to achieve the common goal of avoiding civil war. The American abolitionists, because the very thought of cooperating (in my sense) with slaveowners gave them apoplexy, refused to consider any such alternative.

But with your definition of "cooperate", the abolitionists were doing it right--that's my point. What happened in the US is what happens when your version of "cooperate"--feel you need to do something and just make everybody do it--is working.

> Your assertion that your conclusion is somehow more valid that that of, well, just about everyone

Is based on the very simple and common sense criterion of predictive power. Whereas yours is based on an apparent mystical belief that if enough people agree with something, it must be right. You have offered no other argument.

> no one is saying that

Yes, they are. The rest of the world is saying that everyone should spend huge amounts of money on the Paris agreement, just like Kyoto before it, even though everyone admits that it will have negligible impact on the climate. That is shooting yourself in the foot.