[Dr.Zoidberg]

The first article names a span of

...at least 5% of GDP each year ... to 20% of GDP or more

Also at the beginning they point out that:

...A sound understanding of the economics of risk is critical here. The Review emphasises that economic models over timescales of centuries do not offer precise forecasts – but they are an important way to illustrate the scale of effects we might see.

Stats and forecasting always base on estimations and statistical projections so you will never get an accurate prediction!

So which site is correct.
First one claims a -2.2 % from 1990-2000.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator4.htm
The second one claims -0.2% from 1990-2000 (same report).
http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation_cover.htm

The actual UN report says -0.2.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y7581E....htm#TopOfPage

So the first site is the Earth Policy Institute, second one is something called MongaBay. Third is the UN report.

The rate of the first site is a typing error, as this site refers to the data of the UN!

They are going to have to show more solid data for this guy to support it as they've been crying wolf and (THE SKY IS FALLING) for decades now.

Which solid data do the experts, with the opinion of doing something against global warming has a bad impact for the economy, have?

Where is the difference to the opposing articles? The treatises I listed in my post are neither less knowledgeable nor more scaremongering than all the opposing ones.

So I will not continue to comment on economic coherences, as this subject is very complex and I´m not an economist.