Why should global warming be a moral issue?

With Governor Perry's recent statements indicating his doubt in the global warming hypothesis, the subject has been coming back into the news. It is of interest to me, not because I believe in it, but because I think the argument itself is getting to be a problem. I think the argument is a distraction.

What we need are solutions to our energy problem, not the incessant arguments about whether or not global warming is real or not. But, we are stuck with the arguments for now, so let us take a look at it once again.

Let's start with this, as it seems to be getting down to the heart of the matter. It is about the morality of the issue itself.

Thorstenson: Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?

• "Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming."
• "Morality tells them "what to make of the facts"."
• "Whether a claimed fact is indeed true should be a purely intellectual question, rather than a moral one."
• "Apparently it is now the duty of "good" people to reject these opinions on this "moral" basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false."
• "Things claimed as facts which are "good" (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are "bad" (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are "immoral"."
• "The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this "ultimate evil" becomes "acceptable strategy" if the cause is justified."

What it comes down to is this:  an argument that the left wishes to win in order to enact their policy preferences, which are:

"the childish games of useless treaties, carbon credits, windmills and fluorescent light bulbs"

So, we are to believe in global warming because it is moral and this will allow the politicians force us to buy these silly bulbs and pay these higher taxes.  It seems absurd on its face, but they are not giving up.  No, sir.  How are they going to make us do what they want us to do?

The following stories is how the political game is being played:  Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists

• "One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore."
• "The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner."
• "“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added." [ comment:  Gore equates scientific skepticism  with ugly name calling, which, by the way, is exactly what he is doing himself.  He wants "climate deniers" to be seen the same way as people who use the "N word". ]
• "“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said."[ comment: Why is it not slander then, to accuse people who disagree on a scientific basis, of being morally bad people?  Why is calling someone names not an attack on their integrity?] 

Isn't it all about politics and winning the political game?  Since when did political disagreement become verboten in this country anyway?   Shouldn't we encourage dissent, as opposed to censorship, which seems to be Gore's modus operandi?  Isn't science open and free, as opposed to being closed to discussion and enshrouded in ritualistic, unquestioning obedience to authority?

Not only are Republicans evil, they are against science too!  They refuse to believe in this global warming theory, which shouldn't even be a matter of belief.  After all, it is science.  Science should not expect us to believe, like a Christian who is expected to believe in the Virgin Mary and the Resurrection.  But isn't that what is expected from the populace these days?  Just take a look at Krugman's latest: Republicans Against Science

•    'But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change" 
• "That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”" [ comment: Vile?]  
• "Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt."[ comment:  Witch hunt?  Who's trying to do that?  All those who want to stop this rush into bad policy are doing is questioning the theory, now Krugman is talking witch hunts?]
• "And the deepening anti-intellectualism of the political right, both within and beyond the G.O.P., extends far beyond the issue of climate change." [ comment: once again, we must obey our masters and not question them in any way.  Otherwise, we are manifestly stupid, ignorant, and anti scientific.]

And the pièce de résistance, Krugman deals us an intellectual warning of great portent, one in which must inspire us all to great fear:

But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.

 Shouldn't someone like Krugman be using an appeal to our reason, not an appeal to our emotions?  It is ironic for him to conclude in just a manner.

Update:

Here's some more thoughts on the subject