@WebHubTel, Broecker's "angry beast" came up in another context in which I was involved. I think that was Prof Broecker's way of urging humility and caution, given the paleoclimate record, on what exactly climate might do being exposed to essentially a Green's function test. He did write a thing titled ["Chaotic Climate" for *Scientific American* in 1995](http://earth.columbia.edu/ac/bios/broecker.html), but [my copy](https://user.fm/files/v2-2eead6387387ba22b4da8b56819b0004/ChaoticClimate--Broecker1995.pdf) doesn't suggest much concern with Chaos. A similar sentiment is expressed in a much more mathematical context, one which I like very much: The 1974 Hirsch and Smale, *Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, and Linear Algebra*. In Chapter 12, devoted to applications in Ecology, featuring Predator-Prey, they end with

>The moral is clear: in the absence of comprehensive knowledge, a deliberate change in the ecology, even an apparently minor one, is a very risky proposition.

I love that statement. It has always guided me ever since I learned of the promise and eventual success of mathematical methods in Biology which I first discovered in the 1978 monograph by Peter Yodzis, [*Competition for Space and the Structure of Ecological Communities*](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zoPqCAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=yodzis+competition+for+space+and+the+structure+of+ecological+communities&ots=i2DW4MVcVi&sig=DbdFUfnlx-6_StPtNSu1jj2FORU#v=onepage&q=yodzis%20competition%20for%20space%20and%20the%20structure%20of%20ecological%20communities&f=false), in *Lecture Notes in Biomathematics*. That was a true eye-opener. I hope to return to that some day, when I retire.

That approach to Biological and especially Ecology is now definitive. See, for example, L. Pásztor, *et al*, *Theory-Based Ecology: A Darwinian approach*, Oxford University Press, 2016.