[wizardoz]

If it doesn't hurt our economy or curtail our freedoms, and reduces our vulnerability to terrorism, I'm fine with it. But I think the environmentalist agenda of scaring the daylights out of people is intended to render them psychologically prepared to place environmentalist concerns ahead of security and the free market.

You may call my stance a "do nothing" approach, but it isn't. It simply suggests that it is possible to cope by trying to adapt rather than cope by trying to prevent. Particularly when, according to this very article, it's not preventable. Remember? Even if we reduce carbon emissions by 70% by 2050...? Up to nine degrees warmer by 2100, regardless? We can try to prevent the unpreventable or we can adapt. Sounds to me like adapting is actually much more rational.

[Old Professer]

You are welcome on my team any day; we'll make cogitator the waterboy. :)