According to Marc D. Davidson at the University's Philosophy Department,
In the case of fossil fuel use the issue is more complex but hardly less of a moral issue than was slavery two centuries ago.His abstract states,
Today, the United States is as dependent on fossil fuels for its patterns of consumption and production as its South was on slavery in the mid-nineteenth century. That US congressmen tend to rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risks to future generations just as Southern congressmen rationalised slavery despite ideals of equality is perhaps unsurprising, then. This article explores similarities between the rationalisation of slavery in the abolition debates and the rationalisation of ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases in the US congressional debates on the Kyoto Protocol.I guess those of us who prefer to look at the science rather than emotion when it comes to the great scare stories de jour are probably holocaust deniers and partakers in crude satanic masses which include the immolation and ingestion of little kiddy winks.
Please, I beg you all understand that it is important to realise that those who doubt the consensus are not just wrong in fact, but morally wrong. And of course the arguments of those who are morally wrong can be discounted without looking at the evidence. After all nothing good can come from one who is bad.