I see it differently. Using your analogy the patient (planet) is sick (has a fever, literally). You believe that reducing exposure to some factor (CO2) will bring improvement. I, on the other hand, am not sure the patient is sick in the first place, not convinced that the fever is caused by CO2 and want to see reasonable evidence that if we reduce CO2 by introducing fairly drastic measures (that are not likely to be successful) the fever will subside. So, exactly, it's not CO2 that is "the drug" it's the attempt to reduce it.nafod wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:09 amI think are fundamental splitting point here, is I (really Taleb, I am echoing his argument) see the CO2 as the drug that we shouldn't use since (by your argument) we don't have a model to predict what will happen to the Earth when we use it, sending a big-ass monster slug of it into the atmosphere. You've accepted its use as fait accompli, and see potentially reducing it's use as "the drug".
Lastly, don't hang on Taleb's ideas too much. While he says a lot of interesting things he also manages to say shit of unbelievable magnitude without giving it much thought.