Yes, your analogies are excellent. And you are right in the fact that we do need to act using the knowledge that we have. Mankind does need to take better care of the environment, and we do need to take action to counteract damage we are doing.

But, at the same time we can't limit our action to one point of view, and one only. In global warming we need to be aware and act on all causes of global warming, not just one.

Using your hammock analogy, the view of man's contribution to global warming contributes a certain number of strands to the solution, and holds up with a certain amount of support. But if the hammock is not complete, the support is weak.

Knowing ALL of the causes of global warming adds more strands to the hammock and provides more support for more solutions that we need to take.

More complete knowledge adds more strands and provides more complete knowledge of actions that we should take.

K.C. Weber

In it he makes another analogy about scientific uncertainty and climate change: "There is a tendency to focus on the weakness of the parts rather than the strength of the whole, supposing that if a single piece of evidence can be discredited, the entire construct will fall like a house of cards. In fact, discrediting a single line of evidence is more like snipping a strand in a net hammock—the hammock continues to be supported by the many strands that remain intact. The scientific evidence for climate change in the natural world is compelling in its totality although individual pieces of the story may indeed be open to some question."

Thanks Dr. Pollack!

Also using your puzzle analogy, I feel that man's contribution to global warming is only part of the puzzle. It is a very real part. But there are still many, many pieces missing. I feel that ignoring other things that contribute to global warming can be just as deadly as ignoring man's contribution to it. We need to fit the rest of the puzzle together as well as looking at what we have already. If we ignore the other factors, it could be serious and deadly as well.

K.C. Weber

The only thing I can say here is that, yes, we should take the 'insurance policy' to cut our carbon emissions and pollution – that's good policy regardless of global warming – but at the same time, we should never say that 'the science is settled' on anything. Always keep studying, while at the same time taking action. People saying that the science is settled is what has always angered me about the warming discussions and that's one reason many in the general population don't take the warming serious enough (like they should).

We all need to keep at least a small part of our minds open on any subject, and keep looking for other evidence of global warming, even though it seems certain that we're causing a lot of it. You never know. Also we need to keep looking at totally unbiased temperature reporting around the world to verify the warming and not change methods of determining temperatures to fit the current scientific way of thinking (that's always a possibility I think).

Also, we need to highlight that some parts of the planet may indeed be getting cooler (like some southestern US states) and that all should look at the bigger picture, like another article on 411 said. It's hard for some to believe in global warming with you have record cold in April, for instance.

Thanks for listening. (Ken – retired meteorologist, who looked at extreme weather events almost every year somewhere on the planet for 32 years)