Fran O'Sullivan looks at both sides of the GHG debate

here.
What does this statement for instance mean?

Other coalition members who have delved into the underlying science claim New Zealand has had negligible warming over the past 50 years and that last year was 0.7C below the figure for 2005.

Nobody suggests that the whole world is going to lock-step itself 0.5 dC warmer. Some places are going to get a whole lot warmer and some are going to get very cold. It's an average. You could also argue that saying 'i'm alright, what's the problem' is exactly the kind of attitude that got us into this mess.
Let's not forget, regardless of climate change's effects over the next 50 years, it is poor countries that will suffer and it will be mostly poor people who die. morality justification is left as an exercise for the reader.
Is climate change real? how the heck would i know? do vaccines work? the MMR debate would imply that people don't like to be told things that conflict with their world-view. the only thing you can do is to ask the experts for their best guess and compile more and more evidence. over time it becomes easier to accept the underlying hypothesis than it is to not accept it.
If you want point-by-point debate on climate change 'stallers' then go to realclimate.org - they'll give you the other 99.9% of climate scientists response to the technoFUD of the stallers far better than i could.
note to FS: if you are going to argue for perspective, dig a little deeper into the issues, the maths is a little more complicated than compound interest or ROI so it's not going to be easy...