Maybe not. Suppose the actual effect is to give those who say climate change isn't real, or doesn't matter, enough extra rhetorical ammunition (THE EARTH IS COOLING!!!11!) to prevent anything actually being done to get our house in order. That would be ... not so good.
On the other side of things, the ability of CO2 to contribute to the greenhouse effect may well be saturated by then, just counteracted by the solar cycle. Which would leave us in the place where we're at the mercy of sunspots (which have no control over) and our ability to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere (which we may or may not have control over). Not so good.
And I'm afraid the recent history of people with a very decided political agenda declining to distinguish between #1 and #2 even when the short-term trend in question consists of one slightly colder-than-average winter takes some of the fun out of your ironic wit, for me.
You're saying that if the problem disappeared tomorrow, people would suddenly become more serious about combating global warming? Pardon the pun, but what on Earth makes you believe that?
I don't think an ice age is really imminent, but its occurrence would be a outright calamity. We'd continue merrily down the present course, and be seventy years more fucked when the pendulum came swinging back.
50 years from now, assuming around 2% annual global growth (a conservative guess), the world will be over two and a half times richer than it is now. We'll have had 50 years of technological advancement. Given that right now the biggest roadblocks to dealing with climate change are (a) the very real costs of mitigation and (b) the lack of technological ability to cost effectively generate carbon-free energy and remove CO2 from the atmosphere, there's a decent case on the face of it that we'd be more able to deal with it, notwithstanding the couple hundred extra ppm of CO2 we'd have to worry about.
Part of my motivation is also that I'm increasingly pessimistic about us getting our shit in order in the present day. The current radically corporatist administration in the USA gives only lip service to the problem, and the opposition... well, the less said about the opposition, the better. So if the hand we're dealt is that we have to deal with climate change in the present, we're pretty much fucked. Kicking it down the road would at least offer some hope.
if you're saying that ppm will be in the 600-700 range then humanity will be on an irreversible express train to extinction, so not much else in your post matters
Have you considered that this may change the scientific community's opinion on global warming? If CO2 levels drop faster than expected it may prove that CO2 levels are a symptom rather than a cause of climate change.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
--------------------------
"Solar irradiance: The solar output remains low (Fig. 4), at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s, and the time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer than the prior two cycles. This has led some people to speculate that we may be entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades. Most solar physicists expect the irradiance to begin to pick up in the next several months — there are indications, from the polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning.
However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO2 increase at current growth rates. So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case. Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due to the unusually prolonged solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years."
--------------------------
That said, if a Maunder minimum does somehow manage to give us a couple extra decades to get our house in order (before the subsequent recovery of solar activity), that's a godsend. Let's hope it pans out.