I always though that, as with so much, we don't fully understand the Earth's climate in the way that mass media likes to convey. We have ideas, partial models, a fair bit of understanding of certain stuff.
But there is plenty we don't know and we are continuing to learn. My view has long been:
1 - we are probably affecting the environment adversely as a species, particularly since industrialization.
2 - the extent of this is hard to accurately gauge, as are the results
3 - we cannot accurately predict whether the Earth's climate can 'self heal' - i.e. absorb our changes without long term harm
4 - we cannot accurately predict whether we might be inflicting serious damage that will affect us long term
5 - we cannot accurately predict long term climate changes - we know they happen, but not why/when specifically - for example the World could be on target to have huge temperate rises for reasons that have nothing to do with us, or another ice age could be on the cards in our future
I therefore take the view of erring on the side of caution. You cannot generate masses of heat or dump harmful substances without some impact. If the impact cannot be accurately gauged then you err on the side of caution and take care about what you do. That means investing and and applying restrictions as well as being a lot more careful about what we develop and how we use it.
It also means investing in the research to improve our understanding so we do have a better idea of how the climate system works and what impact different actions might have.
Or ignore it and leave it to chance, but that seems a pretty poor choice to me.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
