Oh... yes.<quoted text>
True, the extent of effect of human activity is debatable but I think there is agreement that it is not insignificant.
Certainly significant and measurable. The problem is we aren't quite sure how to measure it and therein lies the problem. If it is 12% of the problem that would be a staggering stat. If it is 3% or less... well, you catch my drift.
Either way it is a good idea to make reasonable cuts in CO2 output. This doesn't hurt in either scenario.
But it is probably an even better idea to introduce something that would react with CO2 to change the properties of it.
This could actually turn into an issue or the trend could end up reversing itself in a few years.
The Three Mile Island "accident" happened because of human error. Someone saw a temp reading spiking and decided to intervene. That set into motion a series of events that led to the release of radioactive material.
What they didn't know was that the computer would have corrected for the temp anomaly less than a minute after they lost their cool... cheesy pun intended. They overrode the computer when they freaked out.
I am not using this as a parable to support inaction. I just think we need to throw a bit of money at it and figure out what is what first. Historically, having a plan has never hurt. Even shitty plans are beneficial.