But an interesting hijack, nonetheless...

The thing amongst the evidence for planetary warming that should give us the most concern is the almost 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels, and global temperature, long term. Sunspot activity is cyclical, and if that WERE the primary cause, you would think that that, and NOT the CO2 levels that would show the tracking. But as far back as we can accurately go, it's CO2 that is the bellwether of global temperature.

It's true that most estimates put humans' contribution to total CO2 emissions at about 10% of those that are natural. But if reducing that 10% helps delay or reduce global warming enough to avoid some of the 'trigger' events like global ocean currents' disruption, is it worth it..?

I'm sure you have insurance. Despite your odds of a disaster being WAY under 50%.

Does the planet deserve some 'insurance' too? Not to mention that most of the human sources of CO2 emissions are finite, and useful to our society for FAR more than heating and transportation and electricity generation. Anything that moves the world along to other sources that don't emit and are more sustainable has got to be a good thing, even if it DOESN'T save the planet's ecology.

Petrochemical compounds are at the heart of much of our society, and we simply BURN most of it rather than bite the bullet and find more sustainable ways to get raw power. The faster they run out, the faster the day comes when all the OTHER things that use fossil fuel as raw ingredients (you definitely know how much of the pharmaceutical and health care industries rely on petrochemical derived compounds with few affordable artificial substitutes) become unaffordable.

There's more to some of the things that need to be done than simple 'turn down the thermostat'...