> Scientists don't know yet how much carbon will get released from thawing permafrost or how fast it will happen.
In a nutshell why not accepting anthropogenic global warming is scientific and accepting it is anti-science, not the other way around.
But still, there's good reason to believe it would, so it'd be irresponsible to push the button given other reasonable alternatives.
"You can't ever know FOR SURE that this destroy life as we know it!" has to be the least logical form and most confusing of climate change skepticism out there. The fact that anyone would consider this argument, on its own, even remotely compelling, is... oy.
This has everything to do with your characterization of those quotes. "We don't know for certain, but shit could get bad" is a perfectly reasonable basis for precaution. The precautionary principle is not "anti-scientific".
> It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself.
What are you trying to accomplish with this sentence?
This has to do with how bad and how quick the feedback loops created by anthropogenic global warming will be and has nothing do with whether it exists or not.
No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.
Yes. I am feeding apples to you. You are feeding apples to me. that's why a feedback loop is called a loop.
> No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.
You are not a loop. You are a person.
I realize that sounds silly, but I think this actually is the miscomprehension at play. We are both sources. And sinks. That's literally the whole point of a feedback loop.
Because I'm writing this on a site with a combinator in the upper left-hand corner, consider the following programming/logic analogy:
let A = λx.xx
let A = λx.xx;
AA
A is a function definition, not a diverging program. You are a person, not a loop.
The observation by llamataboot that "maybe we shouldn't execute AA given what we know about the definition of A" demonstrates a competent and accurate understanding of feedback loops.