Global Warming.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Give us a link, love!

The article is written by Bjørn Lomborg. A Dane who, just like some pro-global warmists, makes a killer income from global warming: in his case, by warning that we are needlessly alarmed about it.

However, not the messenger, but the message is decisive in the end. I have two remarks to add, each a reply to a part of your two-fold question - which to me are not mutually exclusive, not a matter of either/or, but of and/and.

The first, repeating my usual thoughts about global warming: it is happening, it is partly natural, partly man-made. This distinction is unclear. Our climate models are not refined enough to make a decisive predicition. Global Warming is often a cult. Denying Global Warming is often a cynical lobby.

The second, the political dynamics. For this, it is not even important whether or not Global Warming is happening. Companies and special interest piggies alway scramble to feast on the infinite government trough. After 9-11, companies made a killing from the terrorist scare. Some went so far as to try to get government funded survival packs for all citizens: gas masks, lamps, food stocks. They had every incentive to lobby for alarmist response to terrorism.

Likewise, from the tree-huggin' fringe group to the corporate giant, there is a killing to be made from Global Warming. In your example, the car industry has a big incentive to push for taking cars off the road after seven years.
A government, for it's part, must look decisive. It must look like it's acting at all times. Can't sit back and do nothing. This demand makes it vulnerable to lobbyists, opportunists, or, less cynical, alarmists or simply the demands of politicians' constituencies.

(Sadly, we are also living in a time of political extremism and polarisation. A calm, careful assesment of a problem coupled with a search for a balanced and meaningful long-term response doesn't win anyone votes. Either, a politician must pander to one end of the extreme: 'We're doomed!! We need to spend billions and act NOW!!', or he must pander to the other extreme: 'Lies! Filthy lies! There is no environmentla problem!!', or he must refrain altogether from adopting the issue of Global Warming lest he'll look like an indecisive, flip-flopping fool.)


So, part one, "is it a real threat to planet earth" - yes.
and part two, "...or a smokescreen jumped on by various governments to tax and spend more?" - also yes. Though not a deliberate, coordinated smokescreen/scam.