This is what I'm trying to say too. The resources required to adapt to change are no more significant, from what I can see, than the resources required to try and prevent the change. Especially one that, according to this very article, is NOT PREVENTABLE.
This is what bothers me, and what cogitator never responded to when I brought it up the first time: According to this article, "even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100."
Okay, we aren't going to be able to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 70%. We'd have to stop every mammal on Earth from farting. Good luck with that. So what's the point? Change is coming. Learning to adapt seems more practical than trying to hold back the tide with a broom.
Sorry, I responded to someone else making a similar point. In this case, the author adopts a bad-case perspective. He isn't necessarily right. Number one, presuming this is Centigrade, the majority of the models converge around 2-3 C for warming by 2100. (I actually happen to think that the quote is for Fahrenheit degrees, because the maximum - highly unlikely - predictions are 6 C or 10 F.
Review this long thread, and look for responses regarding James Hansen's alternative scenario.
Furthermore, there have been discussions of carbon sequestration, which could help. But the main determinant is economic trajectories and energy use.
Yes, change is coming. Action now and soon might be able to prevent the more serious detrimental changes. However, if plans aren't made now to enable actions in a few years (like increased use of biofuels), then the window for effective action will get smaller and smaller.
The market is driving some of these changes. That's a start.