Firstly congrats on hitting the Big Twohundo. That's big for a podcast, especially when grad school is involved.
So I was talking about Charlie's work this morning with my wife (if I get any of the facts wrong, please let me know...especially if I'm talking about the wrong paleopal). We commonly talk about the environment, if only because she grasps on "quick fixes" (can't we just legislate that every new building's roof HAS to be made out of solar panels?) sometimes that when we talk it out we can see why that can't work. I brought up looking into the wind farms off shore but cutting up birds, the pipeline but ewww oil, solar farm but hey a desert is an eco system too, etc. She said something that really got me to think. "Is it possible we now know too much? Are we suffering from analysis paralysis? Are we going to spend so much time looking for a solution that has no side effects that by the time one that has the least, it's too late? Can't we just find someone to just do SOMETHING and we'll work on the new problem when it comes, 'cause clearly this is a problem NOW that we need to fix NOW. It's a chance we may need to take."
So that brings us to Charlie. Would his work ever point to: Just do one of these, we don't care which one, it's better than what we've got? Could anyone say something like that and be taken seriously (deniers not withstanding)? Is there a way for the scientific community to come up with a "We don't care just do it" plan?