Stephen Hawking addresses Certainty and Uncertainty in his book 'The Grand Design'.
In the light of this, CBAT suggests the following answer to the science policy-challenge of climate change created by humans: - while there may well be uncertainty in the 'scientific' climate-models, that does not lead to a result where policy-models need to follow-suit and be unintelligently designed.
In view of the risks we face and the potential damages that may be sustained, the need for 'risk-averse' 'precautionary policy' - to do enough soon enough - is an intelligent certainty. Betting on the suspension of the laws of physics steers scientific-scepticism towards the evolution of levels of uncertainty that engender a culture of avoidance, political stupidity and collective disaster.
While this is apparently possible, it seems hardly advisable. Music and performing music both alone and en groupe is acutely 'goal-focused'. Similarly, it makes sense to organize for UNFCCC-compliance in a 'goal-focused' way.
Because of the self-propagating and uncontrollable nature of positive feedback effects consequent on human impacts on the global climate system, the conclusion to draw from the use of CBAT is that negotiating anything above C&C at Low Budget rates with accelerated convergence, is an increasingly certain invitation for humanity to evolve into circumstances to which it will become impossible to adapt.
Somehow, overcoming the wave-or-particle 'quantum paradox', - as in a musical framework perhaps - we have to know both where we are and where we're going. Getting runaway climate change and just calling it 'uncertainty' seems like a high price to pay for failing to figure this out.
UNFCCC-compliance is more coordinating acts-of-will, than acts-of-God.