And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not.
I was arguing about the climate of the environment, just as Nassim Taleb:
But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now.I think we can all agree that "green initiatives" can lead to greater environmental harm through subsidies and waste, and that systems like carbon credits probably serve to enrich and empower such regulators, but it is still crucially importantly to be aware of our individual and collective impact upon Mother Earth (for example, realizing everything's means to their ends) regardless of said political pandering.
I think we can all agree that Nassim Taleb is saying: We should not enrich the atmosphere with additional carbon,
since we do not know the result of such crazy experiments.
My guess is that if increased carbon creating more of a greenhouse effect raises temperature (entropy) on Earth, it raises the carrying capacity of Earth for CO2 sequestrating plants and microbes, increasing the collective metabolic activity of such organisms to eventually check such emissions. I think that the emissions systems we have now do not account for the public cost of emissions and general tragedy of the commons (if demonstrable), and if that were priced in somehow fairly, that might check and smooth carbon emissions and eliminate more serious pollutants. I don't 100% trust Gore's carbon credits though. It also does not account for pollutant emissions really as far as I don't know.