The only dissidence on global warming permitted within the politically correct media is the Lomborg position, which is essentially economic: - that adaptation is cheaper and
easier than mitigation.
Here's a slightly more difficult position to defend: We don't know whether adaptation will be cheaper or
easier than mitigation, but, since it is the only one likely to be acceptable to voters in a democratic society, it is the only morally acceptable one.
Not exact matches
* sigh * It will be
easier to deal with the chemical and geoengineering aspects of carbon
mitigation (I've done this work under the Kyoto CDM)
than with the political forces!!