Reply #2: Wonderful summary - important to read entire piece

[kristopher]

I think it is a spot on recitation of the policy perspective. The only thing I'd add is that I don't think the cause for the sense of urgency is really clear to people who don't have a fairly deep understanding of the forces at work. Even though the risk cannot be effectively argued as a high probability, the degree of potential loss is on a scale that people really only associate with an all out nuclear war.
It is such a low probability (in terms of policy recommendations) that arguing a 90% extinction event can't help but be seen as fear mongering. However, a standard part of the literature includes some work on the Permean-triassic extinction event and the release of undersea deposits of methane hydrate. It's a world killer.
So anyway, I think this fear of world death scale consequences is the kind of fear that many proponents of immediate action have. I also think it is a reasonable personal analysis that lies behind such fear. However, how do you argue it without sounding like a scaremonger with some kind of agenda?