No question that a constant 4% bias above equilibrium over time would have an adverse impact. However, such a small percentage contribution by one source type is easily overtaken by typical variances in the output of other, much larger source types. For instance, a large forest fire, or a volcanic eruption, or some other such occurrence on an annual basis would provide similar bias. Since climate change resulting in global warming is not an immediate crisis, and there is no viable solution to reverse the current trend claimed by popular science given the political lack of cooperation of other industrialized nations, it would seem prudent to focus my attentions on more pressing matters for now. If the situation changes, it would warrant reconsideration. I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about such things; just to keep it in perspective with all the other possible threats leaning on us today.

It is wise to consider all possibilities; to evaluate, to classify, and to plan for. Keeping oneself appraised of the latest data and the current impressions of the experts is prudent practice, and we must all exercise diligence in staying well informed and ready for action. On that, I think we can all agree wholeheartedly, even if our personal conclusions vary.