I appreciate the result is annoying, but pls don't just write without justification that it is unreasonable. It is the *only* peer reviewed analysis, and it definitely includes the Chinese promises before 2030.
You might want to take a look at my deeper discussion on Huffington Post on some of the unreasonable criticisms that excited environmentalists have raised. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bjorn-lomborg/romm-critique-of-cop21-im_b_8580974.html

Dear Ken.

Thanks for your comments -- thought, let's leave out silly accusations like 'organized crime' ... :)

Just one point: the Copenhagen Consensus is definitely not against UN Sustainable Development Goals. We're spending more than a year of our lives to help make them better.

Gathering the evidence that shows what works phenomenally and what doesn't, will hopefully help the world pick more effective targets -- and hence do more good.

You may not agree with all of our findings, and that's what the comment section gives you an opportunity to detail. Moreover, we're actively asking economists from many different angles to explore the issues, and they certainly don't agree on everything. This is exactly what we're trying to do in a messy world -- help show where the evidence is strong that we can do a lot of good, where we know we can't help much, and shine some light on the many areas where we still have incomplete information.

Dear Paulo. Thanks for your comment. As you've probably seen, if you've read my other columns, I've frequently commented on the costs of action vs inaction, e.g. here: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/misusing-the-inaction-argument

You might also be interested in my latest testimony to the US Senate on the costs of action and inaction here: http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=62d6564c-5f76-4a2f-8c67-0a53a1532252

Dear Stefan.
Your claim is simply wrong. The IPCC does not claim that *all* warming is due to humans. They say it is above 50%. This is *exactly* why they say "human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." (Dominant meaning more than half the cause.) If they believed that humans were the full reason, they would have written 'human influence is the only cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.' Pls don't misrepresent the science.
If you want, you can read the IPCC summary, where they actually explain what they mean with 'dominant' in the very next sentence: "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
"More than half" -- not all of it. Or as I wrote: "humans have caused more than half of the global rise in temperature since 1950."

Dear Benjamin.

Thanks for your post. I'm not trying to be dogmatic. But let me just briefly assess your points. You claim that we clearly know the heat has disappeared into the oceans, although the UN clearly says it doesn't really know why (with "low" and "medium" confidence that the reduction could be caused by reduced radiative force and internal variability, http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf, p13).

Nevertheless, even if the explanation is that the heat is going into the ocean, this still question the basic climate sensitivity. If the models have missed that heat goes into the oceans (and don't warm the atmosphere) it seems reasonable that there was a similar transfer from oceans to atmosphere from 1975-1998. (see e.g. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212471110) Both argue for a lower climate sensitivity. This is important, and to not want to discuss this seems -- sorry -- dogmatic... :)

I'm glad you agree with my emphasis on the many other issues like disease and poverty -- but again, my point is simply that a dollar spent here will help so much more. I'm continuously surprised that well-educated people would say spending hundreds of dollars cutting a ton of CO₂ is a better way to help than to distribute these hundreds of dollars on vaccinations, drugs and food.

Your final argument on subsidies is a bit baffling. I agree that it is terrible to subsidize tobacco and fossil fuels. But bad subsidies in one area don't justify other bad subsidies. (And remember, fossil fuels are almost exclusively subsidized in third world countries where they are used to pacify the electorate -- it has little to do with climate policies, see e.g. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324432404579051123500813210). We should get rid of all subsidies.

My point is simply that spending a dollar on solar subsidies typically do less than a cent worth of climate good. That is simply wasting money. When we know investing a dollar in green R&D does about $11 worth of good, we can do more than a thousand times better if we spend money here.

Hope this makes my points a bit clearer.