Yes our models are crude, and the predictive accuracy may be good, or may be as useful as the medical theory of "humours".

But the response to these models is demands to stop using non-renewable resources like fossil fuels for energy, moving to less polluting and de-centralized renewable grids. It's been demands to reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment, reducing cattle emissions, the impact of aquaculture on the oceans etc.

These demands are good, in and of themselves. So let's do them, anyway.

Well, okay, at what amount of warming attributable is it okay not to invest in reducing CO2? What's the spread in impact estimations if we should have reduced emissions, vs if we shouldn't?

Basically, how do we do Pascal's wager?