I fundamentally agree with chaos theory. When I come across predictions based on non-linear, highly dynamic, multivariate systems, I know that uncertainty is an exponential function of time in those systems, even if we have a perfect understanding of how that system works (often not true). This is why I'm a skeptic of most studies affirming the ideal diet or ones that seek to flatten psychological profiles to predict behavior or ones that have simple answers for economic problems or studies attributing all climate change to anthropogenic CO2 and ones that argue that catastrophic warming will occur in the 21st century.<p>When it comes to predicting chaos, there can be no consensus. The only rational position to take is to prepare for the maximum range of outcomes with given economic constraints. For example, if we over-corrected for global warming, investing all of our limited resources into that, and we instead find ourselves plunged into a 100K-year glacial period by the end of the 21st century (perhaps caused by supervolcano), will we have saved humanity or nature from decline or mass extinctions?