We are going full circle, so I'm sorry to repeat myself - but I shall persist!
Why exactly does it matter what someone else’s understanding or interpretation of “settled” science means? If the only variable in the current hypothesis is that CO2 leads warming that seems to be the popular consensus at this time. What do we say if the observations of the next 10 years are that it’s cooler but CO2 remains static or rises slightly?
Because that's how science works. I have not done the observations, I barely understand the math, and I don't have a lab. So we can only declare a scientific fact by paying attention to the experts. If the observable evidence changes and no longer fits the model, you must change your conclusion. Again, that's the very basic notion of science. In the present matter, the observable data and the conclusion have meshed for a long time and new observations buttress the findings. Relying on an unknown "possibility" that the science is wrong is why the term "denier" is thrown around. It isn't about the science or the conclusion, it is are refusal to accept the conclusion.
Let’s face it though, are we really that confident in our ability to estimate global average temperatures 800,000 years ago to within 2 degrees F? (vis-a-vis 2016 being the hottest year on record in 800,000 years). Sorry, I’m still a bit skeptical of that claim as that trusts that our methodology in estimating temperatures is correct and that’s all we have to go on as we did not have global weather stations 800,000 years ago.
I went over this in painful detail and gave links to even more elaborate painful detail. If you can come up with a study that disproves the method of temperature analysis utilizing calcium carbonate deposits formed by organisms, there is probably a fellowship and millions of dollars in grant money in it for you. Recall, they can prove this method in a lab and they can repeat it - so you should be able to disprove it. You don't have to blindly agree, but if you feel the consensus is wrong the burden is on you to go out and prove it wrong.
Science evolves and sophisticated climatology really is in it’s infancy. They didn’t have computerized models and 6000+ data points with ships, bouys, and satellites when global warming was first postulated in the 1800’s, CF. For everything we do know, there is so much more to learn.
Again, we discussed this. No, it isn't in its infancy any more than nuclear fission is or electronics are. But yep. We want to learn more. Once again, that is the basics of science. That's the entire point. We cannot learn more if we assume everything we know "might be wrong" so we just throw it all out. Literally every scientific discovery in history might be wrong (or in some instances we know it is wrong, for instance, we know the Theory of Gravity is wrong because it isn't unified. But we still use it because it is the best model we have and can predict certain things), but we continue to clarify them and build upon them.
And what do we really care about here? That I share the same beliefs in climate change that you do? I figure that matters as much as whether or not you share the same belief in what I believe makes a great wine or beer.
Or is the real point that people should be trying to achieve a smaller carbon footprint in their own little world to help lower emissions, which I’ve always said can’t be a bad thing?
What I care about is two fold: science and the future.
Independent of any other consequences, the scientific method has advanced mankind in a few hundred years more than the 100,000 years before that. When we cast aside its conclusions in favor of speculation, we are doing a huge disservice. Science is presenting you with the most likely facts available. Without that, we cannot make the best decisions possible (not just on this issue).
Which leads to number 2. Yes, lowering your footprint at the micro level is great. However, this is a macro problem. If the threat is as bad as it may be, states like Florida and Louisiana (not to mention nations with similar topography) should be calling for drastic action. As long as we continue to debate a settled topic (the "if") we cannot devout full effort into researching the "so what" element of the question. What is likely to happen and what is the best way to address those issues?
It appears it is a compounding issue. Small changes 40 years ago likely would have had a larger impact than drastic changes 40 years from now. If you want, we can boil it all down to economics: we need to figure out the most likely effects and the least damaging way of addressing them. Our current plan is to wait and see if we need to panic. That seems like a bad plan.
PS. Am I still invited to the ranch.