Bjorn Lomborg writes in the Telegraph:

Likewise, the economic models tell us that the cost
is substantial. The cost of Kyoto compliance is at least $150billion a
year. For comparison, the UN estimates that half that amount could
permanently solve the most pressing humanitarian problems in the world:
it could buy clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and
education to every single person in the world.
Global
warming will mainly harm the developing countries, because they are
poorer and therefore less able to handle climate changes. However, even
the most pessimistic forecasts from the UN expect the average person in
the developing countries to be richer in 2100 than we are now.
So
action on global warming is basically a very costly way of doing very
little for much richer people far into the future. We need to ask
ourselves if this indeed should be our first priority.
Of
course, in the best of all worlds, we would not need to prioritise. We
could do all good things. We could win the war against hunger, end
conflicts, stop communicable diseases, provide clean drinking, step up
education and halt climate change. But we don’t. And we have to ask the
hard question: If we don’t do it all, what should we do first?

There we have it, the usual good sense. Next time an idiotarian blathers on about global warming, simply ask them why they want to take money now from the poor to give to the rich in the future.