I agree that the issue is extremely complex. It is largely the GW crowd that dismisses the opposition. The GW crowd wants to turn society on its head. I have no confidence that global climate can be predicted 100 years in advance. Nor do I think that draconian changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will change the global climate. The burden of proof is on the GW crowd, not the opposition. Attempting to control greenhouse gas emissions will be extremely costly. The costs can be much more reliably predicted that the impact of greenhouse gase emissions. It is a huge, arrogant leap of faith to think that man can control the global climate.
The prudent action is to focus on problems understood with more certainty. The developing world needs to control pollution, not CO2 emissions. The developing world is choking on its air and water pollution, not CO2 emissions.
It’s hard to argue with your post. My views are a little different, but what you say seems reasonable. I do think that you “put the rabbit in the hat” so to speak when you call the changes Draconian. A carbon tax or an across the board cap and trade would fit your description, but some of the renewable opportunities make sense, and would reduce pollution and our dependence on Gulf Oil. (I know we get 90% from other locations now—but that will not be the case in a decade). In making these decisions, I believe the possibility of Climate Change bears some consideration.