That’s very hard to say without quantifying “likely” and “considerable”. One could say the same about most extinction events, for certain definitions of those two words.
Convincing explanation for what? I thought we were discussing whether or not it was worth spending resources to prevent global extinction from global warming… which is more of a question than an explanation.
How is putting a numerical amount to “not likely” and “considerable” convuluted. That’s the basis of any decision probelm.
That’s very hard to say without quantifying “likely” and “considerable”. One could say the same about most extinction events, for certain definitions of those two words.
I find mood affiliation to be a much more convincing explanation than convoluted definitions of “not likely” and “considerable”.
Convincing explanation for what? I thought we were discussing whether or not it was worth spending resources to prevent global extinction from global warming… which is more of a question than an explanation.
How is putting a numerical amount to “not likely” and “considerable” convuluted. That’s the basis of any decision probelm.
For Torgo’s belief. He didn’t ask a question, he stated his belief upfront.