Humans roll with the punches and adapt. That is what made us the dominant species on the planet. All the eco-folks are really worried about is control, control, control.
Assuming that there were (hypothetically speaking) anthropogenic global warming, so the temperature goes up. The folks living in cooler areas (Climate zones 3 and 4) would use less fossil fuel for heat.... and produce fewer "greenhouse emissions", and things would sway back.
Increased tree growth would remove CO2 from the atmosphere and tie it up in plant matter.
If biodiversity is the object, why not a warmer climate? Wouldn't this increase the potential for rain-forest quality habitat? Temperate zone expansion could alleviate some of the ecological pressure on current human habitat and allow more agriculture.
But... there is no data which shows a definite correlation between anthropogenic emissions and climate, or the planet would have warmed significantly during the industrial revolution, not now when we are curbing emissions.
The call for emissions reduction would be universal and have universal standards instead of reeking of the socialist level playing field (you have more so you have to meet a higher standard).
No, this is not science, (or the solutions would be scientific, not political). It is socialist power politics, pure and simple, and the administration d@mned foolish to let the adversary define the debate.
If scientists prove successful at clonging extinct species, and if a warming trend continues, I wonder what the chances are of a real Jurrasic Park someday, maybe in the FL everglades? Might run Disneyworld right out of business!