The current models that are used for this have high inherent uncertainties.
It would be weird if they did not.
The climate models have quite some uncertainties. But the case of no or an opposite effect of CO2 is still very unlikely.
The uncertainty also does not make it better to burn more coal. It is more to the opposite: The expected damage from an increasing temperature is expected to go up faster than linear with the temperature. With uncertainty in the temperature rise we have to take the chance of a stronger effect serious as it would be much more damaging. So the larger the uncertainty the more careful we should be burning more coal.
Besides the temperature rise, there is also the PH of the oceans that is effected by CO2. Here the model is much easier to understand.
......
That is a fair point: unless the US, China, India, etc, also does something it doesn't really matter what a small country like the Netherlands does. Someone got to be first though, and there are benefits to being first as well, but in the end there has to be some sort of international plan and agreement to limit GhG emissions or it won't matter.
Even small countries can have quite some impact. Though not as small as the Netherlands, the support for wind and PV in Germany from the late 1990 on gave quite a boost the the development of these source. This still helps installations from China to the US.
Especially China s doing quite a lot against rising CO2 emissions, though they slowed down in keeping the population in bounds.
India is a problem - not so much with the emissions, but with population growth. Some seem to forget about the dangers of over-population over there fear of climate chance. It gets very hard to keep CO2 in bounds if the population grows fast. Hear India really has to do quite radical steps - or chances are nature will do that.