True. But if lucky happenstance lets us be where we are now in 2060 instead of current predictions, that's still a net win--we'll be a significantly richer world then with more resources and technology to adapt to climate change.

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.

People might say the earth is cooling merely because it is? Heavens, we can't have that!

Oh ho ho. But it might be worth distinguishing between (1) "temperatures over the last few years have been decreasing" and (2) "the longer-term trend, of which those last few years are a sample, is downwards", because #2 would mean that global warming isn't a problem after all and #1 wouldn't.

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.

I'd be pretty happy if we were granted a 20 year reprieve from the consequences of climate change. Perhaps later on we'll be better able to suck CO2 out of the air, etc.