On the contrary, it uses recycled and outdated arguments, and incorrect interpretations of scientific results, to validate inaccurate views and opinions of the global warming issue.
The only part of this that I feel he comes close to being reasonable is this:
We must also consider the costs of diverting vital resources from important issues like feeding the world's poor and providing ample water supply to emerging countries, which is the most important factor to impact world health [Yes!]. Contrary to the wishful thinking of those who believe we can alter climate change, such an emphasis could adversely affect critical world issues. The billions and by some estimates even trillions that it would cost society to cut carbon emissions would have a minute effect on projected global climate change while diverting our resources from more important issues at hand.
The way to address greenhouse gas emissions is not by just "cutting carbon emissions". The way to do it is to improve society (US and global) by changing the fundamental energy infrastructure of the global economy. And this is what President Bush called for in the State of the Union address. By doing what he called for, we can improve society, strengthen our economy against oil shocks, strengthen our national security and the global need to protect oil reserves from control by extremists, address the urgent societal needs identified above -- AND also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The only thing the French have done correctly in the past 200 years is sink the "Greenpeace".