FREEMAN DYSON wrote a very good article about the need for heretics in science
A quote: "I would like to ask two questions. First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it."
Perhaps, but the real problem is the rate of change of climate. In the time scale it takes for the ecosystem to adapt, global warming is instantaneous and, hence, disruptive. Evolution and adaption are powerful but slow mechanisms.
The finches on the Galapagos Islands have been observed closely over a long period, and seen to change from year to year in response to climate (and therefore food supply) variations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant .
I think you're seriously overestimating the time needed for ecosystems to adapt, and for lineages of organisms to change significantly.
For each of your examples which show successful adaption, I believe that there are others that show that species have been dying out because they cannot adapt or evolve because of the rapid changes occurring in the ecosystem or because the niche to which they adapted is no longer there.
I would prefer not to see humanity bet the ranch on the ability of the global ecosystem to adapt rapidly when there is scant evidence that such an adaption will happen at all, much less, happen quickly and painlessly. I think we need to gather more data and learn more about the way our global ecosystem functions. I thin it is prudent to work hard to minimize the quantities of greenhouse gas dumped into the atmosphere, move to renewable energy sources, and generally try to not perturb the system until we understand it.
In a stable environment a large greedy specialist often does better then a lean thrifty generalist. In a more dynamic environment a lean thrifty generalist does better then a larger greedy specialist.
The problem is our methods of food production: Specialized, concentrated and resource hungry. We might have to become more generalized, distributed and efficient.
[Note: Currently "efficiency" is often mistake to mean "externalizing the cost", "doing less", etc. Here it means "more productive with less resources" and "working smarter not harder"]
Our food lacks any real bio-diversity, it all requires nearly the same conditions to grow. For every joule of food we are currently using more then 10 joule of energy, basically we are turning oil into food. And it's not very mobile.
It's not just going to be a simple rise in temperature, it's likely that other things will change, like rainfall patterns or air currents. If the jet stream shifts, the UK might get colder. Would Siberia really be more habitable if it's a mosquito-infested swamp all year long?
This was (?) the way the USSR used to handle conscientious objectors:
They would send you a letter to go serve in the military,
You would go to where you where assigned,
You objected because of your conscience,
They would then send you to a force labor camp or mental institution for a few years,
The hard work, unhealthy food and living conditions,
lacking health care, medical experiments, and violence among convicts
would often destroy your physical and mental health,
Then when you where released,
They would send you a letter to serve in the military.
…
Unless, naturally, your conscience would no longer object to serving in the military…
It reminded me of something Knuth once wrote: "Judge an artist not by the quality of what is hanging on the walls, but by the quality of what's in the wastebasket"
In most of Europe it's called "informatics" or "informatica" which at least to me makes a lot more sense: It's the study of information: data, languages, semantics, knowledge, knowledge representation, and intelligence. It has as much to do with computers as that astronomy has to do with telescopes, optics and radios. So it can/could be a science, it could also be mathematics or a philosophy of understanding.
