I do somewhat buy the plausibility of the economic arguement that reacting to global warning is more efficient than trying to stop it.
The "it's not proven" crowd seem to be in the same camp as the folks claiming you can't prove smoking causes cancer.
I do somewhat buy the plausibility of the economic arguement that reacting to global warning is more efficient than trying to stop it.
The "it's not proven" crowd seem to be in the same camp as the folks claiming you can't prove smoking causes cancer.