Ok, I see where you are going with this. Its a relative question. Yes change is inevitable, and slow change is usually better than quick change. But do we impose restictions on carbon emissions that could have an even more devestating effect on mankind? At what price? Or do we adapt? Mankind has never been better able to adapt to such changes in our history. And that supposes that the rate change will cause a 2-3 degree increase in any amount of time.
Not if it isn't necessary.
At what price? Or do we adapt?
We'll have to adapt as much as we can. What about the people that depend on the Andes glaciers for water supply? How will they adapt? What are we going to do -- tow icebergs from Antarctica to Santiago, and pipe the water up the mountains?
Mankind has never been better able to adapt to such changes in our history.
We're pushing agriculture about as far as it can go. Hear what's happening in California these days? State of emergency declaration, I believe. "We have a water system built for 18 million people. We now have 38 million people," the governor [Schwarzenegger] said."
I point this out not to blame the California drought (or any drought or flood) on global warming. This one is La Nina related, surely. I point it out because much of the world is dependent on high levels of production from high-yield agriculture. If that falters, how well can we adapt? Who's going to suffer?
And that supposes that the rate change will cause a 2-3 degree increase in any amount of time.
Absolute bare minimum lower-bound estimate of 1.8 C rise from 2000 to 2100. (From Pat Michaels, no less -- if you don't know who he is, look him up. Most estimates are higher.)