“Should you no longer believe in how gravity works, how electricity works, magnetism, chemical reactions, photosynthesis etc. The list is pretty long. If one stopped believing these why would you trust a computer to work? A kettle to boil?” - Willem
These examples are very good, W. Notice, though, that every one of them can be put to immediate empirical tests: If I do the rule-of-thumb things that have been worked out by theory-plus-trial-and-error, do I get the expected results that have always worked out reliably before?
With all of your examples - though with things like gravity and electro-magnetism, even though we have a huge repertoire of rules-of-thumb that work reliably, yet we still have literally zero idea about what these things actually are - yet still, at least we know how to manipulate them empirically, with uniformly reliable results.
Jump over to climate and CO2. Here, there’s no uniformity of established rules that work:
We have no clear, universally-established way to manage climate. In fact it’s doubtful whether we ever will have. And in any case, despite all the trial-and-error tinkering that some claim will be useful, we don’t at all understand with any degree of adequacy the complex, interlacing geophysical, geobiological, and geochemical mechanisms which influence climate. Also - because of this being a probablistic rather than a deterministic reality, inherently there are all sorts of things which we’re never going to be able to know - in principle; because of inherent indeterminacy.
This being so, the idea that anyone at all is intellectually-justified in laying down the law about what ‘will certainly’ happen is simply self-deluding. It can’t be done. We just don’t know.
But nevertheless, if I don my bookie’s persona for a moment, I agree that it’s possible to make a reasonably likely bet. But that’s all it will ever be. My bet is that so many humans - in our current population-overshoot episode - making so many disruptive demands on the ecosphere simply has to have many upheaving effects (during the transitional time when Mam Gaia is getting busy slapping everything back down into some semblance of a new state of global-homeostatic stability). Some of those upheavals are likely to be climatic perturbations; and some are going to be seriously hairy.
When overshoots and perturbations correct, incidents such as disastrous crop-failures* and lemming panic stampedes happen, and lots of individuals die untimely. But other effects - a majority of them, my bookie says - will be much more like slow, almost-unnoticeable-in-real-time, tightening down of screws. Slow, but relentless…
And that brings me to another vital factor around climate, population and other large issues: Even if you allow for the sake of argument (though strictly speaking, I don’t) that humans are actually technically-capable in principle of managing weather, global ecosystems, population dynamics, and other such large, inherently-complex assemblies… would we actually be able to organise ourselves, worldwide, to do it in a controlled, equitable, glasnostic, democratically-endorsed way?
You only have to ask the question to understand why my bookie is laughing helplessly as he contemplates that idea; and willingly offers anyone who wants to take them million-to-one-against odds, for you to shovel free money into his hands.
Even if a global restraint, remediation, and healing policy were doable in technical principle, we - feckless hom-sap - are just not going to be arsed to do it.
Fortunately for us, Mam will.
Oh, and re. Wikideceivia: Anything, anything at all, that’s pulled out of a spectacularly-toxic cess pit is never going to come up smelling of roses. It’s ALL going to have a taint of shysterish unreliability about it, because the crew running it has zero intellectual honesty and reliability. And since the crew are a bunch of incorrigible shysters on the make, it’s a fool’s act to give it any credibility, by interacting with it at all. It’s not as if there aren’t other, more trustworthily-honourable sources available. Wikedeceivia delenda est!
*In my teens, in the '50s, there was a vogue for apocalyptic near-future sci-fi which my mates and I consumed with an odd enthusiasm. John Wyndham’s ‘Day Of The Triffids’ is probably the poster-child of that genre. Another of the ilk, though, was John Christopher’s ‘The Death Of Grass’. It just posed the simple question: what would happen to global society if grass-species were suddenly all wiped out by a terrible pandemic…? You know, the species which feed our domestic grazing animals; and which give us edible, storable grains of wheat, barley, oats, etc…
Think about it!