Not really back; I had a bit of extra time (like now) to add some historic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and uninteresting narrative.
If there is any catastrophic warming due to that warming (not likely)
Catastrophe is one thing; serious detrimental consequences are another. I cannot see any scenario now in which there will not be serious downside to BAU. But I'm convinced there is some momentum behind the necessity to change how energy is produced, regardless of climate consequence. Judging for myself, I think wind + natural gas (Pickens Plan) + nuclear is the most logical way to buy time. I'm getting really more and more concerned about the potential hydrological consequences.
Could be, but a lot of that is politics. There will be two types of electrons, politically correct and expensive ones and cheap ones that are politically incorrect. Won't have very much to do with science or economics, just politics (like Pickens and his vested interests).
Your hydrological concerns are valid, but they need to be viewed in context. By far the worst long term droughts here in Virginia were in the 1930's and they took years to build up. One year of anomalous drought somewhere with fires is trivial in comparison.