it seems to me that the bitter clingers to the global warming hoax have never even asked the most basic questions.
1) is it real?
2) if so, are we the cause?
3) if so, is it actually a bad thing?
4) if so, can we even stop it?
5) if so, at what cost?
the bitter clingers assume 1) and 2) to be self-evidently true. but they have never looked at 3). it may well be that a couple of degree increase in average temperatures is enough to boost global food output by x% per year and decrease our dependence on oil/nuclear energy by y% per year. there may be many other such tradeoffs to be considered. i have never - in 25 years - seen anyone discuss/debate question 3). the engineer in me sees that unwillingness to examine this question as proof that the bitter clingers aren’t really interested in science. they have a “solution” and they are simply massaging the data to compel the rest of us to embrace their “solution”.
scientific policy should not be set by lawyers, actors, bureaucrats, and politicians. it should be set by scientists, technologists, engineers, etc. and these people should not have any conflicts of interest w.r.t. getting their research funded based on the solutions they propose.
He shows that the cost of trying to "reverse" AGW would be astronomical and probably unsuccessful, whereas comprehensive adaptation would be much cheaper, more flexible, and easier to undo in case we find out the whole AGW hypothesis was a crock of %$#% from the git-go.
Look up Lomborg. He's worth it.