Great another know nothing telling us that all the people studying this problem scientifically are wrong. What utter arrogance this person thinks we should not listen to the climate science about the climate no instead we should turn to an exe vet. Get over yourself. As for greenhouse gas reduction having a advise effect on developing countries well you could give the author the benefit of the doubt and say they are ignorant of reality, but more probably it's a straight out lie. CFC are a prefect example, the Red neck right and other nutters said it wasn't a problem even as the thinning turned into a hole, Even as the hole of got and the effects were easily measurable, you could still find people like the Author saying it would be to great a cost and would hurt the economy. Well what happened the world got together and band CFC in the most part. Not only that but the replacement for CFC was cheaper and better. The solution to global warming are cheaper and better to for us and the third world.

Where's the argument about the economic cost of Climate Change abatement on the developing world? Now that would be genuinely interesting.

This is just the usual shopping list of random contrarian factoids.

Thanks for the reality check. It is a breath of fresh air

Nice one... good for my morning smirk.

Reality check? I think you should be careful paying heed to someone who apparently doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

Paul Williams is right. Get'em buddy.

If "global warming" is so deadly then why
is Al Gore living in a huge Mc Mansion?

I'm tired of these "Do As I Say, Not As I Do"
experts. They're all fakes.

Paul, I hope that Murray Hogarth reads your article (and my comment on his).

I have seen too much contrary evidence and too many well-based arguments to accept that there will necessarily be significant global warming this century, that the effects of such warming should be cause for great concern, and that it would be predominantly caused by human activity.

But let us suppose that governments around the world decide that the doomsayers are correct, and accordingly governments will act decisively to ameliorate emissions linked to warming. This will require that they sustain for decades policies which have significant costs on their communities but produce no discernible benefits. If the warnings are correct, drastic action may have some ameliorating impacts late in this century. But none of us paying the cost will ever know.

While there may be some votes in the issue this year, the chances that governments could maintain support for such high cost, no benefit policies for the required period is contrary to all experience.

(I drafted this earlier, I hope I'm not repeating a post.)