Fickle - the moral point is the one that was originally made by Oxfam in the Wall Street Journal. (...."for every $50 billion spent to “fight” AGW, “around 4.5 million children will needlessly die”. However we will have the satisfaction of “reducing global temperatures by 1000th degree F in 100 years”)
While we suck billions of dollars annually out of the world economy in order to do our best King Canute impression, we will merely further enrich the already super-rich (eg: our friends at Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch etc) at the expense of those who have little enough already. But perhaps that was their intention all along?