I'm not sure what you are trying to get across. I know he was modeling the weather and found that a slight change made a big difference. The fractal looks like a butterfly, so they called it the butterfly effect. It was said a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo would cause a tornado on the other side of the world.
An enviro wacko would tell you that driving your SUV will destroy the planet because you are affecting change everywhere. I understand that a small inaccuracy in the data fed to the weather computer will change the outcome of the prediction greatly, but the waco's will still insist we are all going to die. I tell them they are right, we are all going to die........someday. I just want to own an SUV while I'm waiting.
My point is the models from which much of the 'global warming' argument is derived are 'flawed'. What longterm 'predicative' information one gets from these models should be taken with a large grain of salt.
Stossel has made a similar statement.