The world is healthier, wealthier, and safer than it ever has been. And most of this progress has been achieved in the era of global warming. The green story does not add up.
Ben - thanks for the article. However, intuition may have led you to invert the meaning of the precautionary principle. Under the precautionary principle, caution must be exercised by proposers of innovations with irreversible potential for causing harm when sufficient scientific knowledge is lacking.
In this case, the innovation is the abandonment of our existing energy system, and the scientific knowledge that is lacking is of the dynamics of the climate system.
In fact, climate catastrophists are violating, not exercising, the precautionary principle.
Under the precautionary principle, it is the responsibility of the proposer of the innovation to demonstrate that innovation is warranted - in this case, (i) that catastrophic changes are taking place in the climate and (ii) the proposed alterations to the energy system (a.k.a "Net Zero") are achievable and likely to produce net benefit. It further proposes that the process that the proposer must use to demonstrate these is the scientific method.
Within the scientific method, the former is unprovable, and the latter provably false. Under the precautionary principle, therefore, "Net Zero" policies should be abandoned.
What you sometimes get is an inversion of the principle: that it is "inaction" (i.e. unwillingness to transform our energy arrangements) that is the innovation, and that the proposer of inaction shoiuld demonstrate that there is no harm e.g. from climate change. This is to be rejected.
Thanks, Richard. As I point out above, the precautionary principle works both ways when considered fully. However, it is of course a nonsense.
The precautionary principle is formulated by the Rio Declaration as follows:
-------
Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Agreed. The agencies all formulate it from the fallacy that arises from affirming anthropogenic climate change as an axiom rather than a hypothesis, and the willful ignorance their own proposals as the activity that threatens human health.
The climastrologists adopted the axiom, when addressing the concerns of climate change and climate change mitigation sceptics: 'Precautionary Principle for me, but not for thee'. They did this on the basis that their allegedly scientifically plausible man-made Thermageddon was several orders of magnitude more dangerous and risky than any possible downsides to the abandonment of fossil fuels and the rapid adoption of alternative so called 'clean Green' energy could ever be. Now that their predicted global warming catastrophe has failed to materialise in the form of the predicted (projected, they insist) rapidly escalating global mean surface temperature, they have been forced to reposition themselves and move the goalposts, claiming instead that the 'settled science' of global warming now means LESS global warming but MORE disruption in terms of extreme weather events. They don't need the PP anymore because the 'climate crisis is happening here and now, and will only get worse if we delay net zero.'
Ben - thanks for the article. However, intuition may have led you to invert the meaning of the precautionary principle. Under the precautionary principle, caution must be exercised by proposers of innovations with irreversible potential for causing harm when sufficient scientific knowledge is lacking.
In this case, the innovation is the abandonment of our existing energy system, and the scientific knowledge that is lacking is of the dynamics of the climate system.
In fact, climate catastrophists are violating, not exercising, the precautionary principle.
Under the precautionary principle, it is the responsibility of the proposer of the innovation to demonstrate that innovation is warranted - in this case, (i) that catastrophic changes are taking place in the climate and (ii) the proposed alterations to the energy system (a.k.a "Net Zero") are achievable and likely to produce net benefit. It further proposes that the process that the proposer must use to demonstrate these is the scientific method.
Within the scientific method, the former is unprovable, and the latter provably false. Under the precautionary principle, therefore, "Net Zero" policies should be abandoned.
What you sometimes get is an inversion of the principle: that it is "inaction" (i.e. unwillingness to transform our energy arrangements) that is the innovation, and that the proposer of inaction shoiuld demonstrate that there is no harm e.g. from climate change. This is to be rejected.
Thanks, Richard. As I point out above, the precautionary principle works both ways when considered fully. However, it is of course a nonsense.
The precautionary principle is formulated by the Rio Declaration as follows:
-------
Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
-------
Agreed. The agencies all formulate it from the fallacy that arises from affirming anthropogenic climate change as an axiom rather than a hypothesis, and the willful ignorance their own proposals as the activity that threatens human health.
The climastrologists adopted the axiom, when addressing the concerns of climate change and climate change mitigation sceptics: 'Precautionary Principle for me, but not for thee'. They did this on the basis that their allegedly scientifically plausible man-made Thermageddon was several orders of magnitude more dangerous and risky than any possible downsides to the abandonment of fossil fuels and the rapid adoption of alternative so called 'clean Green' energy could ever be. Now that their predicted global warming catastrophe has failed to materialise in the form of the predicted (projected, they insist) rapidly escalating global mean surface temperature, they have been forced to reposition themselves and move the goalposts, claiming instead that the 'settled science' of global warming now means LESS global warming but MORE disruption in terms of extreme weather events. They don't need the PP anymore because the 'climate crisis is happening here and now, and will only get worse if we delay net zero.'