A post on Greg Craven's argument

Greg Craven's video from 2007 argues that we as humans should take action to reduce global warming no matter what. He arrived at this conclusion through applying a 'decision grid' in which he compared the consequences of taking action and not taking action depending on whether global warming is true or not. His argument and conclusion make sense to a certain extent, simplifying the trouble of dealing with the global warming problem. Through the grid we saw that the consequence of global warming without action is greater than the consequence of we taking action and there being no global warming. The major loss in taking action against global warming is the reduction of the growth in the economy according to Craven's main argument. Looking at it in a non scientific point of view and assuming that the effect of global warming is total annihilation then Craven's argument is valid and the conclusion is correct. However, looking at it in the opposing manner, the effect of taking action against global warming and figuring out it didnt exist anyway has a very large impact on the economy.  According to some calculations by various professors (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/reponse-to-greg.html), fighting global warming for the next 100 year will limit the economy growth by $718 trillion per year. Accumulated over time, this makes us question whether global warming is worth that much and the chances are it is very unlikely. The loss of money could be used in eradicating poverty around the world yet $718 trillion per year could be wasted leaving the world unable to eradicate poverty. Overall, I believe that Greg Craven's argument is valid and the conclusion is true. Taking action would most certainly increase our comfort in thinking we are hampering the progress of global warming if it is existent yet it is irrational and the amount of money spent on stopping the unstoppable limits the world from progressing to be a better place.