London's Telegraph has posted an article by Christopher Monckton on the economic costs of slowing global warming and exactly what benefit you'll get for them.

Sadly, the answers are "tons of money" and "not much at all." [Click on the print version of the story -- the regular html version has apparently lost the third page.]

This bogus climate change scaremongering is doing far more harm than good. Monckton writes:

Sci-fi panics such as climate change are dangerous because they distract politicians from what really needs doing. Y2K bug: correct solution, laugh; actual solution, Y2K Office. Result: nothing, at great cost. Energy shortages and climate change (if you believe that man is responsible): correct solution, go nuclear and reverse 20th-century deforestation. Actual solution: windmills, rampant deforestation, EU paying farmers not to plant trees or anything else. Result, energy crisis, species loss and no fall in CO2.

Shouldn't we take precautions, just in case? No. The "precautionary principle" kills. Example. DDT: correct solution, limit it in agriculture but allow indoor spraying against malarial mosquitoes. Actual solution: give the inventor a Nobel Prize, then say the chemical is cancerous (it's safe enough to eat) and ban it, especially for indoor spraying. Result, only this year, after 30 million and more have died from malaria, has the WHO agreed to recommend indoor spraying.

Reagan was right about the scariest phrase in the English language.