If the ocean level rises a few feet, wouldn't that be good for the whales and other sea creatures? What about drought - wouldn't that also be less of a problem?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That includes trying to manipulate the climate.

How do we know whatever is done to "thwart global warming" (that isn't a concession that global warming is occurring) won't do more harm than "good?" What is the potential that "prevenion of global warming" efforts won't be just like TARP and the other bailouts - money wasted on the premise that any action was better than no action? Boy, did we get hosed on that one!

I don't claim to have the answer, but I sure have a lot of questions. And if global warming is occurring (again, no concession on that one) one of the questions is, what are the trade-offs? Again, for every action, thee is an equal and opposite reaction - and none of the "good" ones (e.g., less drought, diluting pollution in the oceans, etc.) have been discussed. Why?