Except of course that things are becoming ever more problematic in the natural cycle as well. The water supply in the Indus Valley, for example, does not suppor

Except of course that things are becoming ever more problematic in the natural cycle as well. The water supply in the Indus Valley, for example, does not support even 10% of the people living there. This issue will turn critical (ironically it will turn critical faster if global warming stops) in the next 100 years, maybe faster. They'll run out of water to grow crops, and they're sure as hell not going to be importing much food. Oh and if you're hoping for a political solution. 95% or so of Bangladesh lies in the Indus valley. You'll have to explain to 150 million people, first, that they'll all have to move and that they'll no longer have any political power at all, anywhere. The country will, essentially, die. Oh and the only places they can move are India, hostile to muslims and muslim immigration, and perhaps Myanmar, who let armies massacring and raping muslims run wild for a few years ... Good luck convincing them not having global warming is a good idea. Once the issue moves toward criticality, Good luck convincing them not to start a war ... WITH global warming, it's ~70 years before the issue becomes critical, without, perhaps 15. We need to take active control of the climate. It's not a choice, it's a necessity. One thing I find funny is that when you look at the issue globally, I think the best solution is, well definitely not cooling (and just as warming is totally unavoidable now, a cooling cycle will start perhaps as early as 2200. That will rapidly become a lot worse than global warming is now). Perhaps something like 0.5 degrees per century from this point forward. What we actually want is to slow and extend global warming for at least a few hundred more years.