Following your argument, I'd agree that there's no problem with spending a few millions or tens of millions researching the issue.

What IS debatable is whether we should impose hundreds of BILLIONS of costs on the whole global economy. I have no problem with targetted anti-pollution measures and energy conservation, so long as it is equitably applied.

But be aware that the savings that might be quality-of-life issues in the First World are quantity-of-life issues in the Third World - people WILL die.

Is the cure worse than the disease? I don't know.

What I do fear is a backlash against technology and energy consumption that will see the world enter a new Dark Age, and end our temporary conquest of space. If we stop now, we may never get off the planet, and then the Next Asteroid Impact WILL destroy everything. In stopping global warming, you might just be stopping all of civilisation.

Or then again, you might not. Let's do some more research and find out what is more likely...