The moral failure seems to be the abandonment of professional ethics. If carbon rationing can be effected, the people who control the rationing are going to get rich.
Seems to be? That's putting it mildly, tacticalogic! But you're absolutely right — "If carbon rationing can be effected, the people who control the rationing are going to get rich" — on the basis of thoroughly corrupt science. This is not even to mention the vast transformation of the world order that the upcoming global warming summit in Copenhagen envisions, which is entirely justified on the basis of this corrupt science.
This is not about science; it's all about money, prestige, influence, and — finally — POWER (political and financial). The AGW boosters propound a global wealth transfer from rich to poor nations, and a complete restructuring of the world economy under an unaccountable international bureaucracy. Again, all this justified on the basis of this crappy AGW "science."
This is breathtakingly scandalous!!!
Not only is science a moral enterprise; but if anybody doubted that it is (as Niels Bohr insisted) a public enterprise as well, this case should be the wake-up call.
An interesting question is why is science abandoning its "professional ethics?" Especially since it should be obvious that if science turns its back on ethical criteria, it undermines its own method and instantly ceases to be science.