"Obviously, we haven't see any catastrophic warming in the last hundreds years, nor is likely we will see any catastrophic warming in the future.

If you were standing near the edge of a steep cliff, and inching slowly closer to it, would your logic apply? "

In terms of last tens of millions of year, we currently are in a cold period- including the warmer period 6000 years ago. The only thing "catastrophic" that could associated with warming is sudden melting of ice and resulting sea level rise. We have had over 100 meters of sea level rise in the last 10,000 years, with some periods averaging with over a meter rise per century.
If we currently had a meter rise in sea level per century- I wouldn't call that "catastrophic"- noticeable, yes. A problem perhaps. But not something I call "catastrophic".

Now, at the moment, we have yet to melt glacier mass added from Little Ice age period. We have glaciers in the tropics, which no one is predicting they will disappear within 50 years.
If all the glaciers [excluding those in Greenland and Antarctic] were to melt they would not add significantly to sea level- and this isn't going to happen within 50 years or 100 years. Large glaciers [not counting Greenland or Antarctic] require a long time to melt- even in much warmer conditions.
Considering how cold Greenland is, before any large portion of it's glaciers have melted due to global warming; it seems reasonable to me that the glaciers in the non arctic zones will have melted.
Greenland is warm compared to the Antarctic. And the Antarctic is a vast continent.
Anyways, call me when oranges can grow in Oregon.
Or more pertinent to this post, when pine trees can grow in most regions in Finland.

"The issue of "catastrophic" warming is a difficult one. How do you define "catastrophe", for instance. FOr the Larsen ice shelf, quite evidently, catastrophic warming has already occurred. FOr human civilisation, it has not."

Some event which appears amazing to humans is not what I would call "catastrophic".
The mass of Larsen ice shelf:

"During 2002-01-31–2002-03-07 the Larsen B sector collapsed and broke up, 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick disintegrated, meaning an ice shelf covering an area comparable in size to the state of Rhode Island disappeared in a single season.[3] Larsen B was stable for up to 12,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last ice age, according to Queen's University researchers.By contrast, Larsen A "was absent for a significant part of that period and reformed beginning about 4,000 years ago," according to the study."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf

"The study is important because ice shelf collapse contributes to global sea level rise, albeit indirectly. “Ice shelves themselves do not contribute directly to sea level rise because they are floating on the ocean and they already displace the same volume of water. But when the ice shelves collapse the glaciers that feed them speed up and get thinner, so they supply more ice to the oceans,” Prof. Glasser explained.

Professor Glasser acknowledges that global warming had a major part to play in the collapse, but emphasises that it is only one in a number of contributory factors, and despite the dramatic nature of the break-up in 2002, both observations by glaciologists and numerical modeling by other scientists at NASA and CPOM (Centre of Polar Observation and Modeling) had pointed to an ice shelf in distress for decades previously. “It's likely that melting from higher ocean temperatures, or even a gradual decline in the ice mass of the Peninsula over the centuries, was pushing the Larsen to the brink”, "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210100441.htm

It should be noted that sea ice extent around Antarctic is and has been increasing- not decreasing.
In 2007 when polar ice in arctic sea ice was at it lowest extent, Antarctic ice was at it's highest [Both lowest and highest starting from 1979 when they began to be monitored from satellites]. And today [Dec 2008], arctic polar ice at this time is at highest level since 1979- it refroze at a remarkably very fast rate.

"What I do know is that we haven't got the proverbial snowball's chance of STOPPING the emission of CO2 at present-day rates, or even higher, as the rest of the world industrialises. We can't store that CO2 underground, so we're stuck with it and will just have to get used to whatever happens next, whether it's catastrophic, or merely a little inconvenient. Inevitably, the pain will not be evenly distributed..."

Well, we could add nutrients to vast areas of the oceans that are depleted, thereby increase ocean plant growth.
If we increased the ocean's consumption of CO2 by 10% this would overwhelm all potential human emission of CO2 by 2 or 3 times.
Obviously, this should be studied and small scale [less than .1% of oceans] operations for first couple decades. And monitored for any unforeseen consequences.
This is assuming you wanted to increase fish stocks and wanted to lower global CO2.
Personally I would prefer trying to lease some these areas for fish farming- and generally limit govt incompetence.