Molson Hart

I think it would be really important somehow make @nntaleb's argument more widespread. We CAN'T predict the effects of pollution on the climate and that is why we SHOULDN'T pollute. I have not met a lot of people who understands that logic.

You would think that this is Taleb's argument (as I did), but it's not. Instead he takes the precautionary principle, i.e. we have one Earth so even though we cannot forecast we should take measures to restrict our CO2 emissions on the off-chance that it will hurt us.

We are saying the same thing, no? The Earth's climate is a complex system, we can't predict the effects of our actions, some of the potential outcomes are catastrophic, don't intervene (pollute). That has always been his positions he just explains it more in the PP.

To make it more clear: You have to take actions to restrict pollution (intervene in the economy), but that doesn't have potentially catastrophic consequences and pollution (i.e. intervention in the climate) does. Either way you take actions blindly, but one is potentially worse.