No, since the problem effects us. The question is if we have the ability to do so. Beyond a certain point it may be too difficult to feasibly stop the course of events which are causing global warming. In such a scenario where any effort would either be futile or would cause more damage than letting global warming run its course, should we not seek to act in another method.
To be more specific, in this scenario the problem is that global warming is occurring, and that this threatens the survival of several species. If analysis indicates that the preservation of the present ecosystem is not possible given our present resources, then might it not be best to circumvent the problem entirely by, for example, constructing habitats in low orbit? If farming is not going to be viable on the Earth's surface, and making it viable is unfeasible, then might it not be prudent to look into the establishment of low-orbit, high-orbit, geosynchronous, or even lunar stations to provide some of what may be lost?
If there's a problem, then we should probably fix it. A naturalist could probably argue that, if global warming is from a natural cause, then there is no mess for us to clean up. I, however, think differently. If a natural cycle threatens the continued existence of humanity as a species, then by nature it should be humanity's duty to either overcome, adapt, or circumvent the threat to itself.
Being of a lawful alignment, however, I would also argue that we should see if the problem needs to be fixed (most likely yes) and if it can be fixed (uncertain) in a manner that does not cause another, worse problem (uncertain). Until that is done, we should not act. We probably could fix the problem for a while by, for example, inundating the atmosphere with dust to reflect sunlight. This would probably be made fairly easy by using nuclear weapons to force a large volcanic eruption at, say, Yellowstone. Whether such a solution would cause more harm than good, however, should first be determined before such a plan is enacted.
Edit: And, to reply to a post that came up while I was writing:
So CO2 is at a high level, and we're seeing increases in temperature. This has been correlated in the past with similar event.
Let's say that we succeed in removing the anomalous concentration of CO2. Will this stop global warming, or will other factors such as the melting ice caps perpetuate it? I agree with you that CO2 is most likely a part of it, but if its the only part of it then I'll be expressing a good deal of skepticism.
Eh, and now I've lost my chain of though, so I'll just leave it here...