Reply #12: I made plenty of qualifying statements, and in no way said it's "No Problem, Folks" [View All]

[Psephos]

In my experience when someone is hooked on a schema instead of a critical evaluation, they create a Manichean division of opinion into radically-for or radically-against. It's the oldest and simplest of a long list of fallacies.

I may come to different opinions than you, but I do it with both eyes open. I initially thought this blowout was going to be a catastrophe of the first order, but as events unfold, I now see that it is likely to be a catastrophe of the second or third order instead.

If additional evidence arises that causes me to change my opinion again, I will, because I don't need to protect a position. Knowledge evolves. Generally, it's those with religious impulses who state their conclusions first, and select their evidence afterward.

You are the one who came to me and called me naive. Seriously, how do you expect that to advance a discussion? I have a better idea. Lay off the loaded words (naive, no problem folks, work for Bioremediation, pretend, etc.) when your conversation partner has offered you no offense - unless your purpose is personal emotional satisfaction. But if your purpose is discussion, a bit of civility oils the machinery. Like me, you may find you benefit from consideration of other analyses, whether or not your opinion changes.

By the way, did you read about the 1979 blowout of Ixtoc 1? I prefer to talk about that as background first.