Some who adhere to the global warming theory use the Precautionary Principle (PP) as a reason to act. Their claims are that even if the science is not guaranteed as to the cause and effect of our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that the PP dictates that we act to reduce our emissions. That is, if Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory has a potential to be wrong, because we cannot have 100% certainty as to the effects of our emissions of CO2, then we must act anyway because the PP applies.
Surprisingly there is no specific definition of the Precautionary Principle.**
Wikipedia has this: “The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.”
According to Bill Durodie in ‘An Apology for Capitalism’, “One of the more authoritative [definitions] versions comes from the 1992 Rio ‘Earth’ Summit. It contains a rather cumbersome triple negative, to the effect that not having evidence is not a justification for not taking action. If we undo a couple of the knots, then as two negatives make a positive, we are left with ‘action without evidence is justified’. That’s it, in a nutshell. The precautionary principle is, above all else, an invitation to those without evidence, expertise or authority, to shape and influence political debates. It achieves that, by introducing supposedly ethical elements into the process of scientific, corporate and governmental decision making.”
Is the use of the PP as a reason for acting to change climate change justified? The Wikipedia definition has two important aspects: morals and politics. Both of these are highly abused and twisted depending upon the political bent of the people wheedling the PP sword.
Does the PP require us to act to stop climate change? I would argue no. There are two simple reasons for this.
First, does invoking action actually change the course of climate change? According to Wiki “burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” Thus those who advocate taking action to curb climate change need to show us that taking action will actually achieve the desired goal. It’s not like some potential new drug coming to the market where the company needs to show that it is safe. There is no action on the part of the advocates of caution there as they just prevent the drug from coming on to market. What the advocates of PP on climate change want is for positive actions to take place. This includes spending billions on things like the carbon trade system and billions more on carbon sequestering. Thus the burden of proof falls on them to show that these actions they propose will actually work, and not do more harm than good.
Second, what is the cost of the proposed actions? Does the cost of action out trump the “costs” of inaction? This is a common sidestep by those who advocate action by saying the cost of inaction will be much more. But the economy is so complex, so interdependent, that there is no way that such evidence can be shown. Furthermore, economic models are notorious for being grossly wrong, worse than climate models.
In conclusion, we should forcefully challenge any claim that the PP be used as a reason to act against climate change. We must demand that they show that the use of the PP, and their actions, can be justified.
Richard Wakefield
London, Ontario, Canada
———–
** Gary Marchant and Kenneth Mossman explain in their book ‘Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts’, (International Policy Press, 2005) that the more than sixty European Union judicial opinions mentioning the PP, with perhaps a single exemption, do not attempt to define the PP and that the European Union Courts are well aware that the PP is not defined in European Union legislation, in specific regulatory enactments, or by the EU courts themselves (pg.31).
This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. I strive for tolerance and respect. I don’t always agree with what I publish, but I believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard. I take no responsibility for comments and hyperlinks that follow each blog post and some content may be considered offensive by some people.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I have another theory for you.
Everyday I see fat people drinking diet cola, therefore I can only conclude that diet cola makes people fat.
The original example of the precautionary principle is Pascal’s Wager. Needless to say, I don’t find Pascal’s argument persuasive, and I don’t find the PP argument persuasive. One could also argue that we’re headed into a little ice age, and if we DON’T increase CO2, we’ll all freeze and starve. If we’re wrong, we’ll have a more fertile, wetter, tropical planet, as opposed to a cooler, dryer, more desertlike planet- A. McIntire
The original example of the precautionary principle is Pascal’s Wager. Needless to say, I don’t find Pascal’s argument persuasive, and I don’t find the PP argument persuasive. One could also argue that we’re headed into a little ice age, and if we DON’T increase CO2, we’ll all freeze and starve. If we’re wrong, we’ll have a more fertile, wetter, tropical planet, as opposed to a cooler, dryer, more desertlike planet- A. McIntire
A precautionary principle applied to the current debate can be argued to support the position that we should not take any action against “AGW”. Regardless of what economic model one uses, imposing tremendous taxes and regulations on the economy will drastically inhibit economic growth (only those ignorant of the broken window fallacy can try to argue otherwise). That inhibition of growth will harm the efforts of billions of the world’s poor to escape poverty. Disease, starvation, and early death will be visited on billions of people over the next few generations. All because of the potential economic growth that was strangled by environment policies.
Before we go down that path, the precautionary principle would argue that we need strong evidence 1) proving AGW, and 2) that proposed measures would be extremely effective. Otherwise, simple morality dictates the need for caution.
Thanks for posting this. The full length version can be found at: http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/437/231/
In discussions with AGW alarmists one of the comments they frequently use is “what if you are wrong”, which is an appeal to the PP. I have a parable, and the reaction to that parable is interesting.
Early morning the husband is getting ready for work. His wive says:
W: I heard there was a terrible accident on the highway yesterday. A truck slammed into a bunch of cars and killed several people. I have a bad feeling today. I don’t want you to go to work.
H: Honey, I can’t not go to work on your gut feelings.
W: But I really, really feel something is going to happen and you are going to be in a car accident and get killed.
H: I’ve been going to work for 15 years and nothing bad has happened. And nothing is going to happen in the next 15 years. See you when I get home.
W: And what if you are wrong!
So there you have it. The appeal to the PP by throwing out the possibility that the husband is wrong. The question now becomes. Who has the onus of providing evidence? The wife or the husband?
When I posted this parable on a AGW blog the reaction was silence except one person who, realizing this made perfect sense but was very damaging to their position, decided to add more to my story line. His reply was that I forgot to add the fact, yes fact, that the husband was drunk the night before and is a terrible driver!
This is exactly what we are seeing with AGW alarmists today. Should reality not fit the polemic then change reality!!
Richard Lindzen predicted that there could not be positive feedback to more co2 and now we have Spencer and the Aqua satellite team proving this to be the case so it’s all hogwash anyhow.
So the pp is a non argument and is totally irrelevant, in fact Lindzen predicted a small negative feedback and Spencer found that as well.
Talk about nitwit scientists chasing one another around, it’s a pity there wasn’t more of these layabouts persuing real science instead of conjuring up fraudulent ficticious scenarios to try and impress one another.
I liked the description in the article….
“…That’s it, in a nutshell. The precautionary principle is, above all else, an invitation to those without evidence, expertise or authority, to shape and influence political debates. It achieves that, by introducing supposedly ethical elements into the process of scientific, corporate and governmental decision making….””
It could be read, that the adherents to the precautionary principle have stopped doing science and have shifted to the realm of Faith and belief.
Environmentalism is the new faith. The politics of society now orbit this new God….
However the fascism is not new…..
So, since our legislative antibodies cannot identify Environmentalism as a religion. It isn’t recognized, hence cannot be blocked in parliament. So the fervor infecting our law and values is damaging our society. I would say it is reaching a fever pitch…. 😉
You have to laugh… or you would despair.
I suggest two decades of cooling, this should build an immunity for this kind of sickness in the future….
They might as well propose that a butterfly effect from eating one more banana could crack the earth in two — so it’s safer if you avoid that banana. That’s an indication of how much evidence supports the theory that mankind is warming this planet.
All here feeling cozy?
The only certainty in life is change, the nature, direction and magnitude of change depends on causal conditions. An informed estimate of the impact of our actions on the future requires an understanding of the conditions and the impact of our actions. Neither is present in the AGW debate. Applying a precautionary principle can be done sensibly only with information on the possible outcomes, their probability and the costs and benefits of alternative actions. Absent that info, we are left with behaving sensibly – e.g., I tend to be fairly frugal, I do basic things like turning off unneeded lights etc. No cost to me, whatever is the truth of AGW/environmental issues, my approach is viable.
And, Jennifer, I think you intended “wielding” arther than “wheedling” the sword.
Everytime these fantasists and ratbags try to sell AGW they should always be reminded of the facts and the truth.
In the real atmosphere and using real observation still no positive feedback to more co2 and still no hot spot.
Therefore AGW is a total fraud, end of fairy tale.
I see the Dutch today released a report estimating that they will need to spend $170 billion to improve the dyke system to withstand rising sea levels.
Seems like an awful lot of investment to maintain a myth.
and everyone forgets that man already has the science to reverse warming and scrub co2 if needed…so no need to worry or take precautions, we already have them.
Grendel, the Dutch have always, and will always require extraordinary effort to maintain their dyke system.
The Dutch National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (KNMI) released a report a while back showing sea levels were higher 1000 years ago. Is that document still in play or has it been “adjusted”?
“… we are left with ‘action without evidence is justified’. That’s it, in a nutshell. The precautionary principle is, above all else, an invitation to those without evidence, expertise or authority, to shape and influence political debates.”
Man, this guy’s arms must be as long as Stretch from the FF4 to draw a bow that long. What about when there is some evidence, or quite a lot but it’s not conclusive is in the case with smoking? What if, on the balance of probabilities it is best to act (the test in civil law)? Should we prevent insurance from from ripping people off after all they exploit this principle?
One again this blog resorts to obscure and obtuse arguments to make a bogus point. There are so many straw men around here I fully expect a little pig to turn up.
From first hand experience at the time the precautionary principle was invented I can state categorically that it was thought up by environmental activists to justify action whenever the scientific analysis showed no action was required, and/or the cost benefit analysis was negative. It is an anti-science, political idea used by zealots pushing ideas with no rational basis. It should always be totally rejected by scientists and economists as it is a deliberate attempt to undermine their professional work.
Isn’t it quaint that Mr Wakefield paints the female as the stay at home, emotional alarmist in his little “parable”. Indicates a bit of “yesterdays man” mindset. Go girl!
“whenever the scientific analysis showed no action was required”
And that is the conclusion to be drawn from all the research carried out by the anti-AGW mob? Oh but hang on they don’t do research. Like Jen they just flick through other peoples work and cherry pick. Brilliant!
Yes the Dutch have this 7000 + record of sea levels; perhaps they should mail it to Glikson;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
As to the precautionary principle or Pascal’s Wager; AGW is informed by this as Garnaut’s and Wong’s smart-bum comments and ‘justifications’ indicate; Garnaut in his H.W. Arndt speech on the 5/6/08 predicated all the expense of anti-AGW measures on this basis; at the heart of PP is the threat of catastrophe; runnaway heat, ocean inundation; the threat, as the Royal Science Society’s breathless gibbering about terra-forming indicates (how do you terra-form Earth?), is always expressed in dire and apocalyptic imagery; on this basis the huge cost and disruption can be minimised by comparison; just to recapitulate, The International Energy Agency estimates that to prevent CO2 emissions from doubling by 2050 will require $47000 Billion, in todays terms; which is 47 times what the annual Australian annual GDP; that is, at today’s value; if Rudd’s ETS comes in that value should plummet; the hypocrisy of this, as recent threads here conclusively show, is there is no eveidence of even minor AGW effects let alone catastrophic ones. Because of the overwhelming msm and politically conspired censorship of adequate discussion about AGW, the level of public awareness about what a dud AGW is is abysmal. Recently, I went to a government information session about their ETS; 3 things were quickly apparent; green fanatics do not work; they were there in numbers – “climate change knows no boundaries”- one idiot kept muttering; well, neither does stupidity; seondly, there was real ignorance amongst top business and local council representitives about the ‘science’ of AGW; and thirdly, the ETS is a schmozzle; all the cute terminology is there: CO2 vintages, reinvestment, drawback etc; but the only question I could manage illicited this fact; coal production will be exempt; the ETS tax will apply to coal burnt in Australia, but not to coal exported and burnt overseas. So much for the PP.
The second-last of Wakefield’s paragraphs is just fantastic. Let’s break it down:
“Second, what is the cost of the proposed actions?”
An eminently reasonable question.
“Does the cost of action out trump the “costs” of inaction?”
Wait a minute. Why the scare quotes around one set of costs, but not the other?
“This is a common sidestep by those who advocate action by saying the cost of inaction will be much more.”
Sidestep? WTF? It’s an answer to the freaking question! If you don’t like it, explain why. Prefereably by analysing the economic modelling and explaining why your model is better. Or is it just that economics is too hard for you – maybe not your area of expertise?
“But the economy is so complex, so interdependent, that there is no way that such evidence can be shown.”
Well then why ask the question? Ho hum, I guess we’d best just give up on making economic forecasts then. Quick, somebody tell the Fed Reserve Bank! They’re wasting their time! And our money!
“Furthermore, economic models are notorious for being grossly wrong, worse than climate models.”
Okay, so climate models are better than those we use to determine national and global macroeconomic policy. Sounds like they must be pretty fucking good eh?
What a ridiculous, teenaged bit of self-defeating argument. God help anyone who falls for this nonsense.
This is of course completely beside the point. The precautionary principle has no “precise definition”, because it’s a logical precept embedded in all of us, and the basis for much of our decision-making.
The difference in terms of action on AGW is that the principle leads to conclusions some people don’t like.
“Everyday I see fat people drinking diet cola, therefore I can only conclude that diet cola makes people fat.”
Or alternatively, fat people make diet cola.
interesting link cohenite…. i bet gavin doesnt believe it!
Patrick “Oh but hang on they don’t do research” I guess you missed this one
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
Sponsored by The Heartland Institute
March 2 – March 4, 2008
Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel
But you can still get the transcripts from the Heartland Institute. Ever tried Icecap.us or friendsofscience.org lots of good peer reviewed research papers there. Now lets talk about the $50 Billion worth of research bribes which have been handed out in the last 10 years to the AGW cronies, how much shattering new science has been uncovered by the AGW gang. They are still hanging on to the ice core data which has been proven worthless. Mann is trying hard to resurrect his hockey stick because they have not found anything better. Hell after 10 years they can’t even come up with a credible mass balance for the carbon cycle and their radiation balance, right up front in CH 1, balances out at ZERO i.e. no energy is being lost or gained by the earth so how the hell is it heating up.
Yes, toby, but belief is the operative word when it comes to both the PP and AGW. But who is this uncouth person FDB; a Deltoid veteran no doubt; well, here is the point; I have given a DOE estimate of the cost of implementing AGW measures globally as 47 trillion; Lomborg and William Nordhaus come up with similar figures based on how any carbon tax will impact on the world’s economy; perhaps FDB can point to a similarly detailed cost breakdown of the consequences of doing nothing about AGW?
It sure scares the hell out of me what they want us all to do. And lets face it, no matter how much we chuck at it, until we do find a viable alternative to fossil fuel, anything we do will be futile. We can t control the climate!
It concerns me that it now takes a very brave man / woman to deny AGW because the vitriol thrown at them is so bad. If there is a god, i sure hopesomeone starts shouting the facts out soon to our dear pollies on both sides.
I seem to recall the house of lords looked at the economics of the issue a few years ago and found little cause for action….but that didnt suit the agenda…..
cohenite 12.11pm,
Very good link. If those are the real data [and I would back the Dutch to know] then how much credence can be placed on AGW temperatures?
If you use just the satellite data nothing, other than normal variation, is occurring in sea levels AND temperatures.
The PP is not about controlling the environment, the weather, pollution or ACO2.
The PP is about controlling the world by bureaucracy.
Cohenite – that graph you provided was from a paper by Nils-Axel Morner. Another source might be more persuasive than Doctor ‘Dowsing’ himself!
Grendel; and a better basis for a critique than ad hom might be persuasive too; and I didn’t provide the source, Steve McIntyre did; and he’ll do me; that’s ad hom in reverse. But if you want another source; find fault with Monash;
http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html
Morner was the original source and since when is it an ad hom when you point out potential credibility problems in the original source?
Morner, as a scientist, should rely on evidence. His belief in dowsing is not evidence based, thus his general approach to evidenciary based science must be somewhat suspect.
But thank you for the excellent monash link. I am wondering though why you provided the Morner graph link and then followed that with the Monash one. The point I assume you were trying to make is that the sea level has not been changing much of late (over the last 7000 years or so) The Monash graph shows extensive variation (paricularly around 25000 years ago).
There interesting part is that I keep hearing that we are in an ice age and yet sea levels are now as high as they have ever been, and the ice is still melting.
The other part to this is that while historical data on sea levels is very useful it must be considered in the context of human habitation and the impact of a small rise on areas that are now inhabited, that were not inhabited previously.
In some cases quite large cities exist in areas that are subject to flooding with only minor sea level rises.
In the past humans adapted to the changing climate by moving. That’s not so easy today which is why climate change is a crucial area of interest to governments, and caused by us or not, it is one that is essential for study.
The Dutch reckon the ocean is rising at around 9 cms per century.
The U of Colarado reckon it is now falling.
From my association with sea front property for the last 65 years I can’t detect any change but if any it would be small.
Grendle
has it occurred to you that Morner as a scientist probably based his views on dowsing on evidence? The Russians use it in mineral prospecting, and I have made frequent use of it looking for ground water.
Grendel – “There interesting part is that I keep hearing that we are in an ice age…”
Ummmmmmm, no. Coming out of an ice age. There’s a big difference.
“$50 Billion worth of research bribes which have been handed out in the last 10 years to the AGW cronies”
Sorry Barry, you were doing OK for a while but this one causes an instant evacuation through credibility duct. Best you have a nice lie down after that kind of seizure …
Dowsing was used successfully unofficially in the Vietnam War to find mines and tunnels, an attempt to make it part of Engineers repertoire failed because not all people are able to be taught.
From personal experience it seems that disturbed ground as well as water can be found equally well.
Many Water Authorities around the world have unofficial dowsers to find pipes and sewers that are not mapped, or records lost, and many water drilling companies use dowsers in areas that do not have a determined ground water level.
OK, not reproducible, not ‘scientific’, but it saves a hell of a lot of digging or drilling.
Given the example set by the Pan Pharmacutical case involving misfeasance and mischief by a Govt Agency (TGA), which has cost the Govt $50m in compensation to Jim Selim the owner, why wont the coal exporters, and others seriously damaged by the ETS, be able sue the Govt, ie the CSIRO and the BOM, for wrongful advice when it is publically known to be wrong, and dishonestly so.
I’m afraid that I am a sceptic as far as dowsing is concerned. I understood that Russian mineral exploration relied heavily on drilling and geology rather that mysticism – but I willing to be proved wrong if you can demonstrate that dowsing works. I also understand there is a substantial pool of prize money for the person who does.
Joel – I guess I could have been a bit clearer. I have read comments on this site, and on others that suggest that we are entering a new ice age. I find that improbable given the current quite high sea levels.
Regardless of whether we are entering or leaving an ice age, or whether it is the result of AGW or not, if sea levels are rising, the problem for the many residents in low-lying areas is the same.
Amidst the controversy about the Dutch sea level graph there is this interesting comparison between Holland and Nwe York sea levels;
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html
The so-called bath-tub or slooshing effect is apparent; as it is here;
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
On the East coast the slooshing ascendency is apparent; on the West coast subsidence effects are evident along fault line.
Man has only added 107 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.Present CO2 is 385 ppm.How is the addition 107 ppm by man almost 10,000 times more potent than all the other gases in our atmosphere?The atomic mass of Carbon and oxygen are similar.H20 makes up 95% of all GW influences.
Why is Carbon physically so more potent?Some allude to amplification by CO2.How does CO2 make all the other gases retain more heat energy?It so because it is so,that is the answer I’m confronted with!
Patrick I am talking worldwide and I believe that is an underestimate as I have a letter from the U.S. state department that claim they are spending $2.3 Billion a year on this research. By the time you add up the cost of the NASA contribution NOAA and HADLEY alone believe me you are getting up there.
I think you want to forget that Monash sea level junk.
As recently as 4,000 years ago sea level around Australia was at least 1.5metres higher than today, it’s an established fact that can be found anywhere on the net.
This Monash software is just junk and should be thrown in the bin.
See a catalyst program about 3 months ago referring to the death of an aboriginal in the north Sydney area.
His skeleton was unearthed near a bustop with the spear tip still embedded in bone.
Anyway reference is made to the much higher sea levels 4,000 years ago of at least 1.5 metres.
Arjay Your 107 is very close to the total of 244 GT of carbon since the beginning however only 29.22 GT remains or 12.5 ppm the rest is either in the land, ocean or has been sequestered already. The atomic mass has very little to do with GW it is the resonant absorbtion frequencies of each molecule that counts. CO2 absorbs in the ranges 2.3, 4, and 14 micrometers water absorbes in the frequencies 0.7; 2 to 3 ;4 to 5; and 15 plus so it is much more dominant as a GG. The bigest contributor to GW are aerosols which absorb all frequencies in the IR spectrum and reradiate them. Above 50 meters of atmosphere all the specific resonant frequencies mentioned above are removed from the spectrum thus there is no energy left to activate individual molecules that is why increasing the CO2 content has no effect. There is a small amount of absorbtion from the energy radiated from the aerosols above 50 meters but this is just an internal transfer of energy within the atmosphere so there is no net gain or loss thus no temperature effect. In actual fact the impact of CO2 on GW is less than 10% water 30% and aerosols 60%. In the case of water and CO2 it is only the first 100ppm which contributes to GW after that the saturation effect takes over and additional gasses have no effect. The AGW people only look at half the picture they consider the energy transferred to the CO2 by aerosol radiation but they do not consider that the aerosol temperature drops when it loses energy thus there is no change when this type of transfer takes place.
Grendel
How about being a little more precise in your replies – like writing down the name of person you are replying to.
But you seem not to understand science much – the Russians used dowsing to locate targets which they then confimed by drilling etc.
It is the scientific method in action.
Dismissing it as mysticism is disengenuous – it means you don’t understand the physics behind it, presumably because of ignorance.
But you then accept the mysticism of AGW?