"climate change is widely projected to intensify in the second half of the twenty-first century"
Expert projections of this kind are usually wrong. See Tetlock 2005. The GCMs are not reliable, and there was never any (nonpolitical) reason to think or pretend that they were.
If you want to worry about something, worry about the end of the current interglacial, which is an overdue extinction-level event.
Nothing is equal for all. In the last century those at the bottom of society (income, status, etc.) - nationally and internationally - have risen in level of health and longevity much more than those at the top, but that has had a positive equalizing effect. (Vaccines and antibiotics are available to all in developed countries and more and more in developing ones.)
Surely Hall realizes that - or could if he looked around. Central heat, central air save lives - certainly they also reduce respiratory disease. Of course, policies that decrease the availability and increase the cost of the energy to run these is likely to hurt the poorer before the richer.
Whose "we"? You can't mean this is equally true for all.
Global warming isn't necessarily happening, given bad temp data, flawed modeling, the last decade and a half cooling spate, and the enormous carbon footprints of its chief Chicken Little proponents.
If GW were real, there remains the problem of assignation of blame, since correlation and causation data have been confused, conflated and inverted with respect to rising temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions.
We don't know how to define global climate change and ideal temperatures, much less if we're currently experiencing or causing either of them. More than likely, the sun, and not man's (or naturally occurring) carbon gas emissions, is responsible for any planetary climate change if it is, indeed, occurring.
There is incontrovertible evidence that the restrictions, taxes, wealth and resource re-distributions, social and industrial controls and macro-economics proposed to mitigate the so-called crisis of unproved AGW would be more catastrophic than the predicted warming "crisis" that never happens according to climatologists' models and predictions. There is, however, unimpeachable data supporting the fact that the micro-climates and ecologies around solar and windfarms have been ruined by Progressive men's technology.
Certainly, it's a prosperous age now, thanks to modernization, and especially considering earth's enormous population and that most of us know we can never go back to a state of Paradise, no matter how hard Utopianists try to thrust it upon us.
Still, we live in a day in which more people can be killed in a war or by a contagion than ever before, were a nation or even a rogue group intent upon mass elimination. And, we're scarcely addressing the rising levels of chemical, hormonal, EF, light, and noise pollution and the specter of devastating chromosomal corruption as by-products of modern industrialization and scientific tinkering.
What Lomborg and the other skeptics are missing is that the cost of mitigation drops over time as the technology of "green" energy improves. For instance, just one more doubling, on the heels of something like ten doublings already achieved over the last few decades, in the efficiency of solar photovoltaic (economic efficiency, that is, not necessarily technical energy capture efficiency) and coal is superseded by solar on purely economic grounds for much of the world's electricity.
And solar is not the only tool in our toolbox. Nuclear power, wind energy, etc. are possibilities. A cure for AIDS would be nice, but AIDS research proceeds on different tracks from R&D in energy and the two can surely be pursued concurrently.
Another thing the skeptics get wrong is the cost of doing nothing about our CO2 emissions. The energy we get from burning coal is got and used and then it's gone. The CO2 remains in the atmosphere for at least centuries and probably millennia. Our current heady pace of technical progress cannot really be expected to continue for centuries. We cannot, then, reasonably and prudently discount problems we will be setting posterity with the thought that they will have godlike powers to overcome them. If the Greenland ice cap melts, for instance, a certain major amount of farmland just goes under water. Gone. Our descendants will not be able to rebuild the ice cap for many thousands of years, if at all.
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
The "former" believers have won. Move on!
It was 32 years of science being their laughable; “95%” certain that fed all denial not big oil and why didn't we know (or care?) that the consensus we told our kids to “believe” wasn't “will be”, just “could be”? Did Bush fear monger our kids with an exaggerated crisis? Yes he did and so did the libs.
Climate Blame was an excuse to hate neocons, a lazy copy an paste news editor/journalist/newsrepeater's dream come true, a never ending study of what can't be proven or dis-proven for lab coat consultants, and a political promise from pandering politicians for better and colder weather. How can history not call three or four decades of needless CO2 panic and endless "climate crisis" death threats to billions of innocent children as a pure war crime of the highest order? These Greenzis goose stepped our children to the greenhouse gas ovens of "their" exaggerated climate crisis. Let's hope climate blame was the last vestigial tail of Human cognitive evolution.