If we allow cheap energy, any global warming that does occur will be net beneficial. This is because, according to a recent analysis using the climate orthodoxy's inputs, the cost of energy is the dominant negative impact of global warming. If energy becomes cheaper than assumed in the analyses, global warming would be net beneficial for all this century and beyond and to above 4 C of warming above today's temperatures. This is the conclusion that can be drawn from Figure 3 in this recent paper by world authority on the impacts of climate change, Professor Richard Tol: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

From Figure 3:

The most significant negative impact of Global Warming is energy cost. It dominates all other costs, especially towards the end of the century.

‘Agriculture’ and ‘Health’ impacts are both strongly positive to beyond 4 C temp increase.

The impact of “Storms’ and “Sea level rise’ are about zero net benefit/cost.

‘Water’ and ‘Ecosystems’ are small negative impacts but the positive benefits of agriculture and health greatly exceed the negative impacts of “Water’ and ‘Ecosystems’.

Conclusion: allow cheap energy and the impacts of global warming will be positive to at least 4 C increase above today average global surface temperature and to well beyond the end of this century.

Great article. More.

Yes we are facing an epidemic of religious hysteria. The carbon tax is just a modern version of the selling of indulgences, and all other carbon policy is in the same category.

Although Evans overstates the case, one area where reason and commonsense fly out the window is renewable energy.. The amount of carbon saved by rooftop PV installations and wind farms is highly debatable, for various reasons, and at the very least should be the subject of a through, independent analysis using actual results from the existing network.. this has never occurred.. no-one has ever thought to consult the network operators about just how much carbon might be saved.. in fact, most of the policy in this area has been put in place to win votes, not to save carbon..

Is this supposed to be an informed understanding of the dynamics of Western "civilization" in the last 100 years or so?
If so I would give it an F tripple minus fail!

By comparison this essay gives a much more realistic and very sobering assessment of the self-destruction of Civilization altogether as a result of the destructive process caused by the two world wars.
http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/reality-humanity

Plus this spontaneously given 1980 talk re the drive to total power and control at the root of the entire Western cultural project, including its religion.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index2.html

There has been some work done Curmudgeon.

"Three French CRNS scientists – Olivier Vidal and Nicholas Arndt of the University of Grenoble and Bruno Goffé of Aix-Marseille University – issue this warning in Nature Geoscience.

They say that to match the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass. Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent."

The full story here
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/renewable-energy-needs-huge-mineral-supply-16682

and here with a bit more about neodymium magent production
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2013/11/the-insanity-of-renewable-energy.html

I think Howard and Abbott are on right track.

They are democratic politicians; they listen to a variety of opinions and adopt a pragmatic policy stance in accordance to debates of day.

That is why they are successful politicians. I think they also rightfully concerned about the possible adverse environmental effect from human activity.