Well, I don't have the time or inclination to go through every bit of it in detail. But you don't have to read far, or have a lot of scientific knowledge to see that this article is rather silly.

I'll skip discussing the reasons why the evidence for a 4C projection is shaky, because the physics gets rather technical. We'll concentrate instead on this claim that 4C will result in the end of the world. It's a bit odd.

The temperature on the Earth varies from +66C in the Libyan desert to -89C at Vostok Antarctica. Spanning more than 150 degrees over about 6000 miles, this says that latitude affects temperature by 1C roughly every 40-50 miles. 4C is therefore about 160-200 miles, which will take you from Croydon to maybe a little south of Paris, perhaps around Rennes. The last time I looked, humans were able to survive in Normandy.

Things are not so simple in practice - the warming isn't uniform and the variation with latitude uneven - but even so, the claim being made here is startling, and should be accompanied by more in the way of explanation. At the very least, it should lead you to ask questions; to ask "how is this possible?"
You could at least blink.

Perhaps the explanation is this next bit, about an 80 m sea level rise? But here we have one of the odd features about the way this issue is treated in the media. Because while there are howls every time one of those wicked sceptics deviates from the peer reviewed science, you can be sure that the Royal Society will not be writing to the Guardian to point out that this claim is totally contrary to the scientific consensus. Even the IPCC projects no more than 59 centimetres over the next century, the upper bound on a range of uncertainty, the lower end of which is 26 cm. (Compared to 20 cm last century.) And while they have left a few of the more uncertain contributions out, the fact is that there is no reputable scientist anywhere claiming that Greenland or Antarctica could possibly melt on any timescale shorter than thousands of years.

Why? Because the temperature in both places is nearly always well below zero.

And so, while I have various technical reasons to think that even the 26-59 cm estimate is exaggerated, the fact is that here we have someone quoting Sir David King as their expert and making wild claims that it turns out have no scientific foundation whatsoever. This article is a factor of more than a hundred in error on one of its most prominent claims. What are we to make of it?

There are some more inaccurate claims about extreme weather and an extended diversion regarding ancient times. This is interesting stuff, and has many implications contrary to the alarmist view, but I need to move swiftly on.

The second half of the article is on the economics. We start with the fascinating observation that the biggest winner from Kyoto has been the power companies. Wow! So much for the oil industry not liking greenhouse fear. Because of course a business is not so much interested in how much it can sell, but how much profit it can make on it. Selling a large quantity at 10% markup is not as good as selling a small quantity at 200% markup. And if you regulate and restrict the market, especially if you do it by driving the price far above the cost, the oil companies will soon be rolling in it. Nobody else will, because the economy will crash, but what rationed energy is available will be enormously valuable, and the oil companies will have a government-enforced monopoly on supplying it.

So after concluding that Kyoto doesn't work and should be scrapped (something sceptics regularly get criticised for saying) they decide that what we need is a single global cap applied at source. This apparently avoids the economic pain that a cap-and-trade scheme would cause, although I'm not clear on how. And it will extract a trillion dollars from the economy which they'll spend on other solutions, which (bar nuclear power) are all currently far more expensive than fossil fuels. How this will work in detail isn't stated, but I'm sure these guys must know what they're talking about.

Anyway, that's more than enough from me. It's somebody else's turn now.

I'm sorry, I would comment but I pretty much stopped taking it seriously when I got to the predicted 80m rise in sea level....

Far more worrying is this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2530714/Kent-power-station-protest-Over-50-environmental-activists-arrested.html

If we have no new power stations - coal fired, nuclear, or otherwise - exactly how do people expect to keep warm in 10yrs time? You could cover Scotland with wind turbines and not come close to the power needed to replace our aging power stations which are due for closure.

There's a follow up article at the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange