[cogitator]

We are better off to accept higher sea levels and warmer weather and to spend our money (in far smaller amounts) to do something really useful, like eliminate malaria, provide clean drinking water and sanitation, eliminate AIDS . . . .

I think your position is prudent. By the way, under standard definitions, the "hockey stick" was not a hoax -- it appears to have been an analysis based on too little data and done with too much adjustment (and the scientists who did it would point out that it was a 1998 study and their methods have improved since). It was overly hyped.

Regarding your "what to spend on" scenario: if you could only live in one house your whole life, how would you best spend your money on its maintenance? Some things require more constant upkeep than others. But would you wait until the roof had holes in it before having it reshingled? Some times it makes sense to spend a little money for long-term benefit before having to spend a lot more money on a crisis.

[colorado tanker]

The models I've seen show very little reduction in atmospheric CO2 and very modest decreases in the warming, but at enormous cost.