Exit question 1: is it gravely dangerous to us and what's the timeframe (1000 yrs, 10,000 yrs, 1,000,000 yrs) ?
Exit question 2: how far back re technology and economically would we have to go to change the outcome (100 years pre-industrial revolution, 1,000 years dark ages and plagues)?

I have a negligible effect on the environment. Should I be punished (the individual) for the unorganized action of billions of people (the collective)?

I've had enough with the IPCC references. The IPCC is a policy organization that poses what-if scenarios:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%201.1.pdf [heartland.org]

Basically, they're a bunch of scientists and non-scientists that have policy objectives. Here's the kicker though:
* Even though they use complex computer models, their models do not follow standard guidelines for scientific forecasts. When audited, their little IPCC homework assignments fail miserably - in this case Working Group I violated 72 of 140 scientific procedures, some very critical violations by themselves.
And I'll leave you with one of the contributing authors replies to the scathing criticisms on their shabby methodologies - sorry to all you IPCC lovers out:
---

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author along with Philip D. Jones of chapter 3 of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, replied to some of these scathing criticisms on the blog of the science journal Nature. He argued that "the IPCC does not make forecasts" but "instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios," and then hopes these "projections" will "guide policy and decision makers" (Trenberth, 2007). He says "there are no such predictions [in the IPCC reports] although the projections given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often treated as such. The distinction is important."

I've had enough with the IPCC references. The IPCC is a policy organization that poses what-if scenarios:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%201.1.pdf

Basically, they're a bunch of scientists and non-scientists that have policy objectives. Here's the kicker though:
* Even though they use complex computer models, their models do not follow standard guidelines for scientific forecasts. When audited, their little IPCC homework assignments fail miserably - in this case Working Group I violated 72 of 140 scientific procedures, some very critical violations by themselves.
And I'll leave you with one of the contributing authors replies to the scathing criticisms on their shabby methodologies - sorry to all you IPCC lovers out:
---
Kevin Trenberth, a lead author along with Philip D. Jones of chapter 3 of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, replied to some of these scathing criticisms on the blog of the science journal Nature. He argued that "the IPCC does not make forecasts" but "instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios," and then hopes these "projections" will "guide policy and decision makers" (Trenberth, 2007). He says "there are no such predictions [in the IPCC reports] although the projections given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often treated as such. The distinction is important."

Or what about Amazon's one-click patent joke?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

It was partially rejected in US recently, now Amazon's trying to "fix" it post-mortem. Never was granted in Europe...

Are Euros any better at this than the US? Why are our patent laws so lax?