Would the problem self-correct? Consider the North Atlantic conveyor (gulf stream). Some theorize that melting ice in Greenland could flood the North Atlantic with cold fresh water, and shut down the Gulf Stream. This would cause the northern hemisphere to freeze up-London could have a climate similar to Nome Alaska! So, the N. Polar region would gradually freeze up, and the Greenland ice cap would start growing again-would this restore the prevous situation? PLUS, SUPPOSE that Russian stronomer was correct-and the sun will shortly beging to decrease its energy output-could human-induced warming counteract this? 
The conveyor is a current that runs on the bottom, or least very deep al the way from the North Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and then on the surface over to the Americas and up the coast to the North Atlantic. The time delay in shutting it down and reestablishing it would probably be in the hundreds and maybe thougsands of years.
No, not globally. This is a local effect. Global warming does not mean that all areas of the planet will become warmer. Some areas may well become cooler. This will not affect the average temperature (unless it has some other effect, such as changing atmospheric reflectance by increasing cloud cover.) If northern Europe becomes colder, this doesn’t mean that Antarctica will not become warmer.
Of course global warming will eventually correct itself, because we know from geology that there have been several ice ages and non-ice ages already. The question is: how will humans fare in the meantime? Global warming doesn’t mean (as has been mentioned) that the whole planet gets warmer; it means that a complex, chaotic systems gets out of whack, leading to all sorts of problems everywhere. Lay people think that a hot summer is evidence for global warming; but a cold, rainy summer is also - it’s evidence that the temp.s are going out of whack, which makes it difficult for humans to live. Likewise, global warming leads to desertification in some areas, increased rainfall (through more evaporation) in other areas.
If the gulf stream is diverted, and all of Northern Europe becomes inhospitable, what do you propose for the millions of people who live there to do while they wait for the Arctic to freeze over again?
The planet will eventually find some new equilibrium, at which point the changes would stop. But we wouldn’t necessarily like that new equilibrium. For instance, if the Gulf Stream stopped, the climate of the British Isles could be disrupted enough that even if the stream started up again, they might still stay glaciated (at least, until the next thing came along that disrupted that new equilibrium).
This is the thing that bothers me about the global warming debate. While I might not like the new equilibrium, I am certain I would not like the proposed solutions, which may be just as deadly by causing widespread reduction in living standards.
I’m pretty sure you won’t like the new equilibrium.
I’m not so sure of this. No doubt there would be a lot of dislocation as resources are diverted from one place to be used on another. However, you don’t need to halt or even drasitcally reduce the generation of greenhouse gasses abruptly. But you do have to start working on methods for their reduction and that effort will also create jobs and result in new products and the like.
Wait, what do you guys mean by “new equilibrium”? Are you assuming we’ll continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, but the CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere at the same rate, leading to a stable CO2 concentration?
Of course they mean “new steady state”, as the earth is a dissipative system held far from equilibrium by the sun’s constant input of energy.
Well, eventually we’ll reach that point, by virtue of running out of fossil fuels to burn.