Actually, there are three more, all of which are probably more important than the first two:
3. If it's taking place, what will be the net results? (could be bad, but could also be good)
4. Are we capable of significantly influencing those results positively? (some people don't seem to comprehend that the answer could be "no")
5. If so, would it be worth it to do so? (it's possible that there's a global warming/climate change in store for us, that it would be bad, and that we could influence it positively, but it would simply cost more than it's worth to do so. Another possibility lost on many people.)
Agree with your post. Also, most arguments seem to posit that this GW is going to impact us like a tsunami when in reality it is a long and slow process and we as humans will adapt to the slowly changing conditions. E.g., the fact that there were vineyards in England during the midevial warm period. For crying out loud, if it gets warmer that is not such a bad thing. We adapt, until it starts getting colder again as it has over the ages.
The answer to that is likely yes. To create man-made fog that would cover a square mile of ocean would take about 40 gallons of seawater and less than $1 in energy. Fog can keep the ocean beneath it cooler during the day by reflecting sunlight then burn off and let the ocean radiate heat at night. This web page about cloud water content is interesting: www-das.uwyo.edu
Clouds can also be used as a blanket to keep the ocean warmer at night if wanted. We can increase clouds over the oceans by increasing the availability of condensation nuclei. The salt in seawater can be used to do that. Man-made clouds and snow are likely powerful tools for active climate management. A passive method such as CO2 reduction is probably one of the more inefficient methods.