Food for thought: If the scientific consensus came to be that the current global warming trend IS NOT anthropogenic, what would that matter? That is, say the r

Food for thought: If the scientific consensus came to be that the current global warming trend IS NOT anthropogenic, what would that matter? That is, say the recent global warming is a natural trend - do we still try to mitigate it? If not, why not? The implications could still be dire for poorer countries in non-temperate climates. Of course the flip side of this question is: if it's concluded that global warming is anthropogenic, why do we assume that the best course of action is to reverse it? Isn't it reasonable to suggest that perhaps many more lives could saved by using that money to "adjust" to global warming rather than try to turn back time?