The question boils down to, are the models from the experts of the anthropogenic warming consensus right? From what I've seen, they are wrong.
Dr. James Hansen, who has been called the top climate scientists at NASA by the New York Times, started the whole global warming issue in 1988, where he made a prediction that the earth would warm .35 degrees C by 1997. The actual value was .11 degrees C. I saw another analysis that shows an even greater failure in his models. This is the #1 honcho of global warming, and he isnt even close. Later he said, The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.
NOAA predicted a devastating hurricane season in 2006, and gave only a 5% chance of a light season. And we got a light season.
Current models for 2100 vary between 2 and 6 degrees increase. So there is a 3X variation in the models. And when you consider how climatologists have overestimated temperature increase in the past, this shows how poor their models are.
I find amusing the assumption that most climatologists are paragons of science, with no motivations to skew results one way or the other, whereas only the ones working for oil companies have an ulterior motive. Climatologists have an incentive to skew their results towards more alarming conclusions, because it suddenly makes an inconsequential field the hottest area in science. Also, I once saw video of a climatology conference where a speaker got up and gave a talk that put forward a non-anthropomorphic cause of GW. I was astounded by the emotion in the scientists attacking the theory. It didn't sound like scientific discussion, it sounded more like religious ideologues shouting, "heretic! I've heard from various people that a climatologist who publicly doubts global warming will have his career killed.
Then there is the global cooling issue of the 70s, which some say doesn't matter now, because we know so much more now than we did then. Who is to say we have enough data and modeling now? Dr. Hansen says we aren't able to predict it.
But if the consensus is correct, it is all academic, because there isn't anything meaningful we can do about it anyway. Kyoto will reduce temperatures by .1 degree C. What are we going to do, give up industrialization, and kill off 4 billion people?
wacki, it looks like you've studied this more comprehensibly than I have, so I may have missed some important points. Please point them out if I have.