Hmmm, the spam-plot thickens (Richie Benaud, eat your heart out).

"Rafe Champion brings the grafting qualities of the opening batsman and the cunning of the offspin bowler to the task of routing dogmatists, protectionists and other riff-raff who stand in the way of peace, freedom and plenty."

He has a website and he blogs at Catallaxy and also at The History of Australian and New Zealand Thought. For more about Rafe visit here. All of his posts on Catallaxy for 2007 can be found at this link. Not all the links work and some need to be cut and pasted into the browser."

The author obviously seems to think Matt Ridley has single handedly debunked 150 years of science and exposed AGW as the biggest fraud and hoax ever played on mankind by not only the vast majority of the world's scientists, but also all of the globe's science academies and institutes.

Sure, there will be some benefits to a warmer and wetter world. However, if the projections turn out to be true (and we're already tracking at the high end), the costs will far outweigh any benefits.

Hey Poirot, do you think the author or any of his fellow travellers here would understand Naomi Klein's article? I think not, they repeat the same mantra and have got nothing new to add.

Even if you accept AGW is real, which it isn't, then a cost/benefit analysis clearly shows the best approach is to do nothing and adapt; the reason for this is, if AGW is real, which it isn't, because there will be benefits such as increased crop yeilds and more land available for cropping, less deaths and medical costs because people do better in waremth than cold; these benefits are completely ignored by the alarmists and other acolytes of AGW.

Various people have compared the $ benefits and costs of the various approachs to AGW: Happ, Carlin, Nordhaus and Lomborg; in Lomborg's appraisal he values the benefits of doing nothing at $2 trillion world-wide and the costs at 1$ trillion. Lomborg costs the effort, as recommended by the Durban fiasco, of keeping temperatures to 2C increase at $84 trillion and the benefits at only $11 trillion.

Clearly therefore, if AGW is real, which it isn't, the best approach is to do nothing.

I'm not sure, bonmot...it's got lots of big words in it : )

But why don't we give it a try.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

oh dear, fail.

No, I don't welcome warming:

Climate-change itself should be no problem and we could manage it quite well, but not the headache we get from the the greens/reds as a reaction to it, which outweighs any possible benefits.

Yep, too many big words ... or a low attention span :)