Bear with me, I've got a hypothetical for you.<p>If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change was <i>not</i> anthropogenic, would we still be talking about reversing it? That is, say it's all due to solar cycles or cosmic smog or whatever. And assume that we'd still be under the specter of all the same nasty repercussions - would we be talking about reversing it or coping with it?<p>And if it turns out that the global conversation would shift towards adjustment strategies - then isn't that what we should be talking about now?<p>Because as a practical matter - reversing a 200 year old problem in the making is probably about as difficult as reversing a natural phenomenon.<p>Of course another angle is forget the origin of the problem altogether and focus on costs. If it's going to cost 90 trillion to undo it all or 40 trillion to adjust - what should we do? Keep in mind that at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives (foreign aid, healthcare, education, etc).