This is actually an intelligent thread on the subject, maybe baseball fans are smarter than most people!
I'm writing a book on the subject (well, the future of energy), but my perspective is as an energy economist/lawyer, not a climatologist.
A few points:
1) I don't trust climate models, it's not that I don't trust the modelers, it's that I've worked with complex simulation models, and climate models have more uncertainty and complexity (i.e. incomplete data sets, partial understanding of climate mechanisms, etc.). We can't accurately forecast weather a week ahead yet (well, in Texas we can, from mid-June to mid-September just forecast 100 degrees and sunny, and in Austin you'll be right 90% of the time ). much less 20 years out - and trying to figure out ocean currents, their potential chances and impact of changes, well . . . Doesn't mean it's not worth trying, just that the results should be treated with educated skepticism (not dismissed, but understood in the context of the difficulty of the exercise).
2) One large problem in the debate is the desire of Physicists and Engineers to put forth solutions, now these are smart guys, but they have no concept how economies work, like the environmentalists who pushed command and control, they simply see things as desired results and feasible technical mechanisms to achieve those results (which often imply hiring additional Physicists, Engineers, Environmentalists and of course Lawyers). There are certain situations where command and control (appliance standards were effective for reasons too complex to get into here) does work at minimal social cost, there are other situations where there could be tremendous economic costs. One reason economists like price mechanisms (like a carbon tax) is that it involves less government control (and thus avoiding bureaucrats choosing the "right" technology or another 10,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register) by signaling to market actors to change their behavior.
3) Unfortunately, the one factor no one wants to talk about is that population growth has always been the big problem, if China and India had 200 million people instead of 3 billion, if the US had hit ZPG a generation ago, this problem would be far more solvable. Nature has a way of dealing with excess population, which has reoccurred in history numerous times, famine, epidemics, etc. If we don't comes to grips with this issue, that may be the "natural" solution. Sometimes, tree huggers find themselves hugging a tree that's falling on them. A world with 10 billion cannot constrain fuel use without a quantum jump in technology, one that may not be possible given thermodynamic limits (i.e. we've got gas fired plants up to 50-55%, hard to get much better performance). Drastically reducing energy use may not be an option, "clean energy" may be too expensive (sure, electric cars don't emit, but they consume electricity which does emit, unless you use windmills which require a lot of energy to construct and backup power due to their variability and large solar farms which cover a lot of ground and require long transmission lines . . .) -- I can theoretical solve this problem as long as crashing the economy isn't included in the model. And what do we owe future generations - recursion from the end of the world (the sun turning into a red giant) suggests there are some practical limits.
4) I'm thinking about moving to Price Edward Island, should be the climate of Carolina in a couple decades, unless of course, the Gulf Stream quits, in which case it may be colder than a witch's . . . Decisions, decisions