Economics is not a science - but nice try...you analogy is useless.
From your post you are poorly read in current AGW science - you comment might be appropriate in the mid 90s
Start with the my signature and get yourself up to speed....the norm in a science forum is to provide support for a stance from science sources.
You have not supported your argument, which goes against the climate science consensus, and you have not iota of supporting backup.
There seems very little skepticism on the side of the AGW proponents that the current warming trend will keep going.
Because you don't have the science understanding that the laws of physics are not whimsical.....we have put a higher carbon concentration that the planet has seen in 12 million years and carbon retains heat in earth's atmosphere.
it's not a random process, it a measured, observed process that has been understood in broad scope for over a century.
Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm
How fast the consequences of the warming will unfold and how frequent the extreme events t engenders is still very much under study.
No fairy godmother is going to come by and wave a wand and make it all better.
The carbon has been accumulating above the natural cycle for 300 years and it is cumulative..
Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
The hysterisis in the global energy budget is very high and buffered by the cryosphere and the hydrosphere with regards to transient impact on the atmosphere.
That same hysteresis tho means even if we stopped carbon emissions cold - another .6 degree C of warming would occur to reach energy budget equilibrium.
This is hard science in the traditional sense, not speculation junk from the economists wannabe scientists.
This physics. Perhaps you shuold try and catch up with where the science lies.
There is little skepticism ( none for practical purposes in the climate science community ) as AGW is a known understood physical phenomena like evolution.
Outcomes however and timing remain difficult to project, one reason being we do not know how well carbon limitations on emissions will be enforced.
So you end with a range of scenarios as MIT has undertaken.
MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm
Massive flooding is a directly physical response to a warmer climate as a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour.
Tropical storms are heat engines so stronger storms ( if not more frequent ) are a physical consequence of increased ocean heat especially at the surface.
The science is not hard....and to be an AGW skeptic these days is akin to being an evolution skeptic.
What is IS very hard is to determine a policy of what to do about the carbon emissions.
Even the fossil companies knew the reality from their own scientists in the mid- 90s.
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2
Perhaps you missed the memo....
