Conscience and context

My conscience has gotten the better of me: In my previous post, I would have been fairer to quote the rest of the paragraph from The Garnaut Report, which concludes as follows (in italics):

...there is a great deal of uncertainty about the magnitude of the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions on science. The scientifically reputed ‘sceptics’, to the Review’s understanding without exception, accept that an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in itself leads to warming (Lindzen 2008). The ‘sceptics’ variously contest the relationship between human-induced anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric concentrations, or the relative importance of the enhanced greenhouse effect and other factors that influence climate (ch. 3 "The Science of Climate Change", in Garnaut Climate Change Review: Draft Report, pp. 47-8)

Context
A letter to the editor in last weekend's Oz helpfully described the political (and, hence, to a large extent, public?) context for discussion about climate change:

The previous government failed in the early years of its term to promote a public scientific conversation on the issue. This created a vacuum which was dutifully filled by Labor's feverish preaching on climate change, presenting it as the great moral challenge of our time rather than a global scientific issue.
As the Rudd Government now grapples with an emmissions trading scheme ("Carbon Load to be spread", 27/6), we have the absurd situation where any suggestion of reviewing or tempering our approach is shouted down as the words of skeptics and non-believers -- as it was in federal parliament this [last] week...
James Baird
North Melbourne, Vic

If Mr Baird is hinting that science and morality occupy completely different realms -- and I'm not sure he is -- then I think that's a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic to his assessment.

Opinions?