Setting aside the science,

most consistent economic analysis from people who specialize in environmental economics (Martin Weitzman being most prominent) have demonstrated that the regulation of global emissions and conservation efforts would in no way "cripple world economies." In fact, when done right, it has a positive effect on developing countries and only a marginal negative effect on developed and rapidly developing countries (think: we'll have to wait to mid-2051 to be as rich as we would have been in late 2050 etc.). It's pretty standard neoclassical theory Weitzman employs with some Bayesian tricks, nothing too fancy.

Considering that the global economy will hardily suffer at all, and given our uncertainty about the effects of global warming , action is more than justified.

Forgive me if I'm going to go with standard neoclassical cost analysis done by respected economists like Weitzman over, say, Phelim McAleer. I'm sure he never even bothered to read the analysis by people like Weitzman or Costanza.

I also love how that they don't bring on someone like Weitzman, Costanza, or Mendelsohn to go "hey, McAleer doesn't know what he's talking about and here is why ....". But then why would we bring on actual experts when we come just bring on this guy or Al Gore and call them "experts"? Right?