It doesn't matter. Do you buy insurance, for anything? Even thought the proposition that your house will burn down is (to say the least) "dubious", you buy insurance regardless, right? It doesn't require 100% ironclad knowledge that your house will burn down before you buy fire insurance, at least for most people it doesn't.

Regardless of the state of the art, the only thing that must be proven is that it IS PLAUSIBLE that human CO2 emissions will cause a very serious and long lasting problem. This hurdle was passed many years ago, and it has been continuously upgraded from plausible to likely to just about certain since then. Given the availability of substitutes (it is 100% idiocy that we burn coal, killing millions of people a year worldwide for electricity, as an example), those substitutes should be utilized as soon as possible. In the case of coal we'd actually save money, medical bills aren't cheap, they're more than enough to cover the differential between coal and most other power sources. Once we get rid of all the things that not only cause climate change, but are also actually more expensive and nasty than the alternatives, then maybe we can even talk about whether or not spending more resources on energy is worth it, or just roll the dice and take what we've got. We haven't even come close to reaching that point yet, and we likely never will.

The future will almost certainly see us using effectively all the world's oil in the next decade or two, and gas will be close behind. They will be exhausted long before the economists realize that they are not physicists, so that problem will "take care of itself", in the sense that we're probably already locked in for 100% of the bad effects that might come from this. The only carbon source of significance that isn't all but guaranteed to end up in the atmosphere in the next 100 years is coal, if we steer clear of that one, we're probably at least in much better shape. This is just about the only choice we have to make at this point anyway, and it's a no-brainer. It costs us more to burn coal than most of the alternatives (due primarily to medical bills resulting from poisoned water, mercury in fish, emphysema, etc...), and that's without even considering climate change.

Of course, digging up what untouched wilderness we have left for a few more barrels of oil doesn't help anybody. It won't be enough to change that fact that in 50 years cars had better be electrical, and it certainly won't make climate change any less bad, so why do it at all?

'What about when the business model is making science?'

This seems quite strange as a perspective - as if there is some sort of business associated with observing data in the physical world around us, formulating a hypothesis/theory which can be refuted, then attempting to gather additional data to either confirm or refute the original hypothesis/theory. Obviously, as a human endeavor, it shares human flaws, including vested interests and inertia (comets as a major, if not the main, source of water on Earth is my favorite example of a current proven paradigm which will take a generation to be accepted, much like plate tectonics took that long for acceptance) and all the participants do agree on a set of rules, which may be pithily summed in the observation that while you can dispute theories, you can't dispute facts. And science can be done by anyone - whether a monk in his garden, or an alchemist who just happens to make a few pertinent observations about prisms, for example.

As for the science, the suggestion of visiting somewhere like realclimate.org is a very good one - there are a number of effects of vulcanism on climate, for example, and that is a fairly good forum to discuss such matters, though a rigorous one.

Without trying to cast any aspersions, there is something strange in your posting style, which seems to attribute motives to people without actually knowing the individuals at all. In the case of climate change, many more people are convinced of it these days, because they simply notice the world around them, which is not the same as a scientific explanation. And those who often opposed seem to have a direct interest in continuing their activities, regardless of scientific evidence - as witnessed by the company that started this thread.

It is quite reasonable to keep pointing out facts in a scientific discussion when discussing an explanatory framework, but to imply that the discussion somehow trumps the facts is simply not correct.

So you've just been reading up on Mt. Erebus and now you KNOW that it is the major source of the stratospheric ozone that helps create the annual ozone hole(s)?

Sorry. Scientists have known for decades that volcanoes spew chlorine, in the form of HCl, into the troposphere. As a result, chlorine from Mt. Erebus was one of the first suspects for causing the ozone hole after the hole was initially reported. However, scientists quickly discovered that very little HCl from volcanoes makes it up into the stratosphere because HCl combines very easily and very rapidly with water vapor and condenses out of the troposphere in rainfall. This NASA article discussing volcanic chlorine sources as a cause of the ozone hole is just one of many sources on this subject.

Even though "typcical" non-explosive volcanic emissions were soon ruled out as significant stratospheric chlorine sources, there was still some concern that major eruptions such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, the largest volcano eruption since 1912, with their columns of smoke reaching 20 or more kilometers up into the sky, might be major, albeit irregular, sources.

Extensive direct measurements of HCl from Mt. Pinatubo in the stratosphere has lead researchers to determine that it contributed less than .04 million tons of HCl to the stratosphere. For comparison, about 1 million tons of human produced CFCs and related compounds were being added to the stratosphere each year at the time th ozone hole was first reported.

The Mt. Saint Helen's and El Chichon eruption of the 1980's also added very small amounts of HCl to the stratosphere, as small or smaller than Mt. Pinatubo. Research very strongly suggests that even mega-eruptions, such as Krakatoa in the early 1800's, are usually not a major source of stratospheric HCl. Those eruptions produce as much as 1000 times more water vapor than HCl. As the eruption plume rises, the water vapor condenses into liquid. Given the very high affinity of HCl for water, the liquid water quickly washes almost all the HCl from the plume. For a much more detailed discussion and explanation, with extensive scientific references, see this.