Anti green,
Of course you are right, the economic and social cost of implementing -a carbon tax or an emission trading scheme, or a large scale switch to renewable energy sources - is far in excess of any reasonable and foreseeable danger from climate change.
If the climate change doomsayers are right and there really is a bad thing on it’s way, well we will all be rich and living in Mac castles, with all sorts of goodies to play with as the storm breaks over us.
What was it a NSW Pollie said a while ago? What’s the point of saving ourselves from climate change, if we don’t have an economy?

Climate change has been taking place for the last 40 years,
Be prepared to live underground,
I don't see how anyone can say there has been no change.
More drought, More rain, More intense sun, More destructive wind.
The score is on the board.
There's is something going on which makes it hard to plan for the longer term.
I still can't guarantee a crop this year.

ludwig "Climate sceptics and denialists might gain a bit of credibility if they were seen to be addressing some of the other huge aspects of the global human imbalance with the environment and resource base. But they don't do this, do they. They just sit back and say; "she'll be right mate"

What's your basis for saying that skeptics and denialists just sit back and say she'll be right mate about any other issues.

Like any alarmist, you're caught up in galloping exaggeration, if you want to have any credibility, you have to stop these adventures into hysteria and fantasy

How do you know I or many others are not buying up land to hold as forest so no one can ever exploit it?

Where's you evidence? Most of us are skeptical about CO2 being the bad guy,but not about say land clearing or many other things, and people say this constantly on OLO, but you appear to never see that, how selective are you?

You just "assume" that all skeptics are naturally adverse to anything you disagree with

What a huge leap of faith, but I guess pretty normal and totally expected of an alarmist.

I note you want the precautionary principle applied, is it just to global warming, or can we start bombing North Korea and Iran right now, since there is a threat that they will use nuclear weapons, better to be safe , let's bomb them now eh?

I expect though you will be selective in your alarmism though.

sarnian - one of the points about the article is that all the indicators are simply not showing the big increases in sea levels consistantly been forecast by the greens. We are, at best, seeing tiny increases. As for a large chunk of ice breaking off from greenland to reaise sea levels by the odd metre or so this is impossible, as the author points out. Most of the Greenland ice sheet rests in a big valley so it can hardly slide into the sea..

As is widely acknowledged Artic sea ice has nothing to do with sea levels. Summer ice levels fell to lows not seen since satellites started recorded the seasonal cycle - that's what you're referring to when you say no ice; there's plenty of ice in the winter - but there is some evidence that the artic summer ice has been low at times before that.

The big differnce is that this time we can see it by satellite and there has been talk of global warming.

Dear sarnian,

it is a nonsense to suggest a carbon tax, or increased taxes for anything, would damage the economy. There are vast quantities of capital available among obscenely wealthy corporations and individuals---the people who pay the least tax and enjoy the most profligate lifestyle perks.
The brain-dead pay-as-you-earn-mob is so used to reacting in a knee-jerk manner when the spook gets around, "tax hikes predicted", that they never stop to object that extra funding needed for carbon trading, hospitals or whatever, should be scooped off the top! No, it's like a natural law; "tax hikes" are bad "by definition"; it can only mean we all pay more. (Why can't it mean the fat cats pay more? Lots more! Internationally so they can't run away with their hoard!) But no, these benighted souls vote it down in droves at the ballot box because they believe the ideological claptrap fed them from the top down---that "austerity measures" don't apply to the wealthy. They don't question it. They applaud it. Thus we have the mind-boggling scenario, play-out recently wherein the "Labor Party" is nearly voted out of office by its own constituency for wanting to slice a fatty steak off the mining moguls (they should be boiled down into aspic!).
The ETS should be paid for, world-wide, from the salaries of the wealthy on a descending scale and creative accounting banned.
Heavens no! goes up the chant from their idiotic minions, "the economy would falter!"
Well the global economy is already a dead failure for the vast majority, while the rich get richer. The wealthy should pay for the ETS, and other infrastructure.

and nobody has mentioned what effect the eruptions of Mt St Helen's, Mt Pinatubo and the Goroka volcano has had on the climate.

What, don't they have the statistics available for that? They happened years ago, and volcanoes are still erupting today. Don't they disturb the climate a whole heap more than humans do?