"We are killing the planet to preserve a twisted, completely unrealistic definition of economic success: infinite growth on a limited planet."

Economists (and most of the people in developed or developing countries) would not define it like that because they would not even consider the finite nature of the planet. Success is growth. The opposites, finite and infinite, don't even come into it.

Robert was a bit less sure on climate change but I think he should turn round the argument of the denialist. Robert said, "They view the opposition as putting global economies at risk by putting a price on carbon emissions. While I think environmental devastation is a much worse consequence than economic stagnation, the impact of that could be pretty severe as well." But, as dohboi implies, growth cannot go on forever on a finite planet.

So, given that economic growth has to end, what is the risk of the AGW proponents being wrong? It is that humans have to figure out how to live sustainably a bit earlier than they would otherwise have to. Put that way, the risk of being wrong is tiny compared with the risk of the denialists being wrong.

The fanatics might argue that a bit more growth can help lift living standards for the poor around the world. However, New Scientist buried that one in their special report, How Our Economy Is Killing The Earth, last year.