Chaos theory predominates weather and climate. A small change may have large, unforseen consequences. Therefore, human (anthropogenic) activity might trigger some major change. A wise person would take reasonable measures to mitigate such possibilities. 'Reasonable' is the crux of the arguement and subjective. It's hard to do a proper risk-benefit analysis because the issue is SO politicized. I regard minimizing hydrocarbon consumption as also benefiting national security (we don't need to pander to the Saudis, et. al.) and sensible in that they're non-renewable. Unfortunately, the US political party likely to be in control for a while is irrationally anti-nuke and controlled by rabid climate change fanatics and trial lawyer interests, folks not high on nuclear power or even windmills near their Cape Cod estates.

As to the climate models, what a crock. They're not codified physical laws but simply empirical models constantly being tweaked. Consider them the current incantation of epicycles .

Here's the latest in a long series of "Whoops! We forgot" factors in so-called climatology models.

There seems to be something new under the sun -- in the sky, specifically -- that could complicate scientists' efforts to get a fix on how much the world will warm in the future. Greenhouse gases are not the only things in the air that influence the temperature of our atmosphere. Clouds and small airborne particles called aerosols also play an important and complicated role. And now a new ingredient has been discovered: an extensive and previously unseen "twilight zone" of particles that represents a gradual transition from cloud droplets to dry particles.