We change the climate in local regions all the time. Dams, coastal walls, etc all change the world to suit our needs. I see no reason the global climate is different.

In other words, the climate change that everyone is frantically trying to reverse would probably be better for the biosphere, and for humanity in general. For specific humans with well-established property interests on or near the oceanic coasts, the current climate trends will be disastrous.

If every organism on the planet had a vote, Earth would overwhelmingly be in favor of more anthropogenic CO2 emission. Of course, only the humans understand the potential downsides, such as temperature-triggered methane clathrate decomposition that may have already been a contributing factor for two planetary extinction events, including the Permian-Triassic (the worst).

~Obviously, the solution is to ignore the CO2, dig up all the methane hydrates, and turn them into useful plastics before the temperate rise causes them to melt.~

Climate changing slower than humans give birth or starve, plus lack of petroleum age mobility, will result in this bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

This caused the death of millions when Genghis Kahn's men needed to immigrate somewhere due to climate change. We'll probably kill a similar percentage of various cities in the next big climate change.

The climate never has been constant and there is no "the official correct climate".

Trying to force people is likely to result in war which is likely to, overall, kill more people than letting it do its thing. We're running out of stuff to economically burn anyway. Its not like we're only 0.0001% burned up or even 10% burned up. Soon enough, talking about rationing something we no longer have access to burn will be quite pointless. Voluntarily saving some for later is likely to have a pretty decent economic impact. Social engineering by modification of tax law is likely to save more centimeters of ocean than any strictly environmental or behavioral regs.

Then again I think that maybe it's a time for an "official climate" because it's the decentralized decision making that's screwing as over wrt/ anthropogenic climate change. Someone has to make those regulations and enforce them.

I think the answer is an absolutely unequivocal "reversing it". Regardless of the underlying cause, I don't think that anyone would argue that the potential effects of global warming are anything less than catastrophic. In that light, it only makes sense to talk about adjusting to climate change when you've decided that preventing it in the first place is an entirely impossible task.

Many more people die now from cold weather than from warm weather. So maybe a little rise in temperature is a good thing. And historic evidence shows that warmer climate meant more productive crops in the middle ages and in the roman empire.

Maybe I am wrong, but I would need more solid evidence of the catastrophic consequences of climate change before sentencing millions of people to death because we choose to spend money fighting climate change instead of fighting malaria or improving access to clean water.

It does that at every scale.

Most of the effects that climate scientists predict will happen as a result of increased global mean temperature are highly negative; from the extinction of many species to the loss of coastal habitats (for humans).

In a non-political world we would compare the costs of climate engineering practices against the costs of taking the resulting losses from failure to act.

I hope you like thick sweaters and/or handheld fans, because the Country Like Everybody's Dad isn't made of money, and close the front door, because it isn't paying to heat and/or cool the whole world, plus the inside of your house, too.