Also, I would suggest you take up some reading on evolution – extinction is commonly associated with global climate changes. And if current scenario is not fixed and the temperature rises to 3 degree, humans are going to be extinct. Almost all models that predict the global climate changes predict that. Also, you are ignoring the fact that humans can survive only if we have a earth that provides for us – we need water, crops, animals that graze etc. In other words, we need other species for our survival – both plant and animal life. If you cant get that – there is nothing I can say other than read up on biology – particularly ecology and conservation. Then you just might get why it is important to consider the Earth as a whole and not just about humans.

And lastly, if Lomborg made mistakes on climate science and biology – why the heck would one take his word about economics? He is not an economist and in matters that I dont know about, I do rely on EXPERTS in the field. But that is just how I function.

PS -I would suggest that before you comment, you do actually read the report. Because you keep bringing up points that are flawed and make me suspect your understanding of Global Warming.

@Sakshi,
Let me start by a nit-pick, lest it comes back to haunt me. I would pick “cure for cancer” over biodiversity (not “cancer”). Let’s move on. You think human race would get extinct because of the current GW, I think not. And I doubt if any serious model claims it. Can you please quote the source of your degree-by-degree analysis of GW. I would want to know better before I reason on it. Specifically I am interested in the physics used in the research. I don’t see how a six (or even ten) degree rise can melt the glaciers that are -50 deg now. I believe that you are referring to “irreversible melting” in immediate temporal sense, because if the history of earth has taught anything, nothing is permanent. One thing we all agree upon is that the money we have is finite and we have to decide what is the best way to invest it. But it so happens that most of us are so immune to the stories of malnutrition deaths, that we don’t even take it as a tragedy anymore (irrespective of its importance for human welfare). On the next point, there is a fundamental difference in the way we think. I put human welfare before any other species. You do not. This being a subjective issue, there is nothing I can say that can convince you otherwise, and probably nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. So I am not even going to tread on it. I thought my silence on this issue would be sufficient, but looks like you want me to say it. Very well. I do believe that Lomborg went wrong on many of this issues and the experts corrected him. But I still stand by his other argument on human welfare from cost-benefit analysis point of view, because I agree with his analysis and reasoning (on cost-benefit analysis). I didn’t require him to be an expert on an issue to see that it makes sense, and I also don’t go with assumption that if someone’s one argument is wrong, it means all his arguments are wrong. PPS: Do read the book. It is aside all topics we are discussing here and is really fun to read and unputdownable.