[TigersEye]

I agree that we have no way of predicting whether the consequences will be negligible or not.

I don't know how you can agree with me about that since I disagree with you. My little foray into Yin/Yang theory followed by examples of extreme pressures that couldn't effect planetary climatologic stability were my way of saying I considered changes in temp. and gas levels negligible.

Even if I thought we were capable of making the climate warmer or colder I would still hold that our efforts would be confined to the limits found in the historic record.

[FreeTheHostages]

"I don't know how you can agree with me about that since I disagree with you"

LOL, now I'm confused!

In any event -- I don't know what you mean by Ying/Yang theory but I am familiar with steady states in biological systems and complex systems -- and if the the implication is that in this highly complex model it's quite possible for the extreme in one variable to be counteracted and lead to oscillations of highs and lows -- that makes perfect sense to me.

In fact, we already have lots of natural oscillators -- North Atlantic Basin etc. -- occuring on decadal patterns. And we have ice ages which may or may not be oscillating at a much longer periodicity, depending on what causes them.

I don't think I'd call one degree of temperature over the last century "negligible" -- there are changes in forestation, in tree lines, in flooding occuring that are predicted by a one degree increase. I just don't think the science is in that I'd call it "bad" either.

Again, I think Vostok settles the debate about whether the recent CO2 increases are negligible: they're not.

So, I agree that the predictive science is bad, and we don't in particular know what the effects of the "problem" will be. I disagree that we don't have a warming trend and accelerated increases in CO2 and methane.