Don&#x27;t read too much into me not saying &quot;climate change is X&quot;. I refrained because it involves human agency, but I wouldn&#x27;t call it truly adversarial either. Let&#x27;s add &quot;intentional&quot; to the mix. ISIS&#x2F;Da&#x27;esh is an organization that has intentions to kill people, and is essentially a singleton in that regard even if it influences people to kill in packs of autonomous cells (&quot;autonomous&quot; used loosely, they&#x27;re on the Internet and talk to each other).<p>Climate change, on the other hand, doesn&#x27;t really have a central bureau that seeks to engineer more climate change. At best it&#x27;s a nasty side-effect that some large organizations might chose to ignore, but they don&#x27;t explicitly optimize for it and it&#x27;s obvious it&#x27;s not large organizations doing most of the damage. It&#x27;s like a tragedy-of-the-commons problem, which once again you can construe as adversarial – I wouldn&#x27;t. But if you continue to, I would implore you to consider that the attacks are adversarial-intentional while climate-change is adversarial-incidental. Terrorism isn&#x27;t a tragedy-of-the-commons, it&#x27;s a design.<p>I think the classification matters because it alerts us to some facts that I&#x27;m afraid we might underrate: like the notion that the people Actually Believe This Stuff as the simplest explanation, rather than convoluting it with some hammy sociological explanation, or even a statistical one. Because I think that they Actually Believe This Stuff I continue to think that they are ideologically incompatible with the West and should be isolated rather than risk being welcoming to them (by accident). The deaths of the Parisians should, if not be avenged, then be taken seriously as a failure of our ability to protect ourselves from our enemies.