Dan Calabrese manages to take two positions on global warming, or whatever the envirowackos are calling it:

Remember, the whole “climate change” debate is a canard and always has been. Big government types, both in Washington and around the globe, are hyping this hysteria as a way of justifying things they want to do anyway. Massive tax increases and controls on industry are not some emergency steps they propose to take in the face of an emergency. They are the fundamental core of left-wing thinking, and they can’t make them happen without convincing people that we’re all doomed without them.

That is one of the reasons the following question is rarely considered: Even assuming man-made “climate change” is real, why are we to assume it would be a terrible thing? Just because the scientists working for the UN and cited by Democrats and the media say so?

Calabrese quotes American Thinker, which quotes the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change:

The authors find higher levels of carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures benefit nearly all plants, leading to more leaves, more fruit, more vigorous growth, and greater resistance to pests, drought, and other forms of “stress.” Wildlife benefits as their habitats grow and expand. Even polar bears, the poster child of anti-global warming activist groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are benefiting from warmer temperatures.

“Despite thousands of scientific articles affirming numerous benefits of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2, IPCC makes almost no mention of any positive externalities resulting from such,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Dr. Craig D. Idso. “Climate Change Reconsidered II corrects this failure, presenting an analysis of thousands of neglected research studies IPCC has downplayed or ignored in its reports so that scientists, politicians, educators, and the general public can be better informed and make decisions about the potential impacts of CO2-induced climate change.”

The authors look closely at claims climate change will injure coral and other forms of marine life, possibly leading to some species extinctions. They conclude such claims lack scientific foundation and often are grossly exaggerated. Corals have survived warming periods in the past that caused ocean temperatures and sea levels to be much higher than today’s levels or those likely to occur in the next century.

Calabrese adds:

The authors also make what should be the rather obvious case that forced movement away from fossil fuels would cause devastating instability in the energy supply, destroy jobs and lead to economic chaos – all of which would be ridiculous when fossil fuels remain not only the most plentiful but also the most reliable energy source on Earth. When newer sources become viable through the advancement of technology, great, throw them into the mix. But in the meantime, there is no reason to force it when the alternative sources aren’t ready and fossil fuels remain plentiful, safe and clean.

None of this is necessarily to say that man-made global warming is real. I remain a skeptic, a position I base in part on the failures of their predictions to come to pass, in part on the way they try to silence their critics (which doesn’t usually indicate confidence in your own position) and in part on an understanding of what motivates them.

But what the NIPCC has done here is throw another useful question into the mix. Not only is it absurd for us to just take global warmists at their word that it’s happening, it’s also absurd to just take them at their word that it would be a bad thing. This report makes a compelling case that it would be far more beneficial than troublesome.

In either case, we have people purporting to tell us what will happen in the future – in spite of the fact that the same people have not been successful in previous attempts to do so – and also telling us that we must stop all debate and do everything they say. Now.

Why?

Why should we believe their assessment of the situation is accurate?

Why should we believe the consequences will be what they say?

Why should we believe the right solutions, assuming we need solutions, are ones they want?

Why should we discount a study from another group of climate scientists, this one not associated with government, just because it disagrees with the conventional orthodoxy on the issue?

Meanwhile, there is more bad news for the doomsayers, according to Breitbart:

The economic costs of ‘global warming’ have been grossly overestimated, a leaked report – shortly to be published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has admitted.

Previous reports – notably the hugely influential 2006 Stern Review – have put the costs to the global economy caused by ‘climate change’ at between 5 and 20 percent of world GDP.

But the latest estimates, to be published by Working Group II of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, say that a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures by the end of the century will cost the world economy between just 0.2 and 2 percent of its GDP.

If the lower estimate is correct, then all it would take is an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent (currently it’s around 3 percent) for the economic costs of climate change to be wiped out within a month.

This admission by the IPCC will come as a huge blow to those alarmists – notably the Stern Review’s author but also including everyone from the Prince of Wales to Al Gore – who argue that costly intervention now is our only hope if we are to stave off the potentially disastrous effects of climate change.

Sir Nicholas (now Lord) Stern was commissioned by Tony Blair’s Labour government to analyse the economic impacts of climate change. Stern, an economist who had never before published a paper on energy, the environment, or indeed climate change, concluded that at least two per cent of global GDP would need to be diverted to the war on global warming.

Stern’s report has been widely ridiculed by economists, whose main criticism was that its improbably low discount rate placed an entirely unnecessary burden on current generations. Even if you accept the more alarmist projections of the IPCC’s reports on “global warming”, the fact remains that future generations will be considerably richer than our own – and therefore far more capable of mitigating the damages of climate change when or if they arise.

But Stern’s Review, published at the height of the global warming scare, was seized on by policy makers around the world as the justification for introducing a series of economically damaging measures, including carbon taxes, more intrusive regulation and a drive to replace cheap, efficient fossil fuels with expensive, inefficient renewables.

This is why Lord Stern has been variously described as “the most dangerous man you’ve never heard of” and been held responsible for some of the worst economic excesses of the green movement.

As Bishop Hill wrote:

When you see wind farms covering every hill and mountain and most of the valleys too, you can blame Stern. If you can’t pay your heating bills, ask Stern why this has happened. When children are indoctrinated and dissenting voices crushed, it is at Nicholas Stern that you should point an accusing finger. When the lights start to go out in a few years time, it’s Stern who will have to explain why.

Despite years of having mainstream economists pointing to the flaws in the Stern Review there has been an almost unanimous collective shrug from the media, more interested in climate porn than the wellbeing of their neighbours.