I would have thought it to be self-evident, but since you ask...

It's an opinion piece written by a notorious climate-change denialist. Its main source is a document that hasn't been released yet. It is full of breathless hyperbolic speculation, e.g.: "Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings." It puts the emphasis on the "facts" (because there are precious few actual facts) that support Murdoch's political position and downplays the facts that undermine that position, e.g. "Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is." and "...there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm." i.e. because things might not be getting quite as bad quite as fast as was predicted, that everything is therefore going to be hunky-dory and we should all stop worrying and just carry on burning fossil fuels with abandon, because, hey, we have a 50-50 shot that it will all turn out to be a net win.

I could go on, but life is too short to spend too much time debunking creationists, truthers, and denialists. If you want more, start with this:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2265541/breaking...

Pointing out that the article has been published by a corporation who's agenda is as much ideological as it is commercial, and which doesn't shy away from publishing outright lies whilst pursuing that agenda is a constructive contribution imo.

Especially since most of us, including the author (who btw is also strongly ideologically motivated) aren't climate scientists and the actual report isn't out yet.

This is not a particularly credible source, and definitely not an unbiased one, trying to assign meaning to as yet unverifiable data.

Climate skepticism is mostly Anglo Saxon phenomenon and there are studies that show it. Google it up. These tools get payed to write this stuff.