Posted on 12/16/2009 12:37:24 PM PST by NonZeroSum
Those advocating that we upend the global (and particularly the U.S.) economy to stave off climate change resort to a concept called the “precautionary principle“. Simply stated, it is that if there is some risk of an irreversible disaster in taking an action, then that action should be foregone.
In this formulation, the risk is climate change that will be disastrous for humanity, and the action to be foregone is continuing to add the carbon dioxide that is ostensibly causing it to the planetary atmosphere. The beautiful thing about the principle (at least for them) is that, because it doesn’t assign any particular probability to the risk (i.e., it is uncertain), then it doesn’t matter whether the science backing it up is known to be valid, because even if the science has only a small probability of being correct, the principle applies.
The original advocate of the precautionary principle was the mathematician Blaise Pascal, who came up with a famous “wager.” To wit: we can’t calculate the probability of the existence of God, but if he exists, the cost of believing in him is small, and the wages for not doing so is eternal damnation. Therefore, it makes sense to believe.
Many in the centuries since have pointed out the flaws in the argument. For instance, there is a non-zero probability that God will consign you to perdition if and only if you believe in him. Thus, to avoid this fate, the only safe course is to be an atheist.
Which points out the flaw in the principle in general. While it doesn’t require a precise accounting of the odds, it also doesn’t necessarily provide guidance as to what to do if there’s any chance that the proposed cure (or “insurance policy”) is worse than the feared disease. And a good case can be made (as has been by people such as Bjorn Lomborg) that in fact there is not just an excellent chance, but almost a certainty that this is the case with most of the proposed solutions to anthropogenic global warming.
Read the rest...
Like allowing Moslems to enter the United States?
Part of my job is risk assessment. I saw a youtube video on GW a couple of years ago that was pure BS and using this “precautionary argument.
The comeback is very simple. There are three aspects to analyzing and mitigating risk:
1. The likelyhood of the thing happening.
2. The impact of the thing happening.
3. The cost of mitigating.
This is why we do not harden buildings against a direct hit by a meteor, even though it is possible that it could happen and the impact could be devastating.
You don’t bankrupt your family putting in an alarm system when you live in an area where there is virtually no crime rate and you’re having a hard time putting food on the table. This, even though technically it is possible you could get robbed.
Somehow, the proponents of the Precautionary Principle only apply it to issues of which they approve.
They don’t even consider applying it to same-sex marriage, no-fault divorce, health-care “reform,” “comprehensive immigration reform,” etc.
The PP is by definition an extremely conservative principle. It’s promoted, however, mainly by leftists. This is very odd.
| Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics | % of Greenhouse Effect |
|
|
| Water vapor | 95.000% |
94.999% |
0.001% |
| Carbon Dioxide (CO2) | 3.618% |
3.502% |
0.117% |
| Methane (CH4) | 0.360% |
0.294% |
0.066% |
| Nitrous Oxide (N2O) | 0.950% |
0.903% |
0.047% |
| Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) | 0.072% |
0.025% |
0.047% |
| Total | 100.00% |
99.72 |
0.28% |
Human contribution is INSIGNIFICANT.
Under the Precautionary Principle, there no debate is allowed. Its typical urban presumption is that stopping ALL human activity that MIGHT contribute to a POTENTIAL problem is NECESSARILY beneficial. It is the presumption that to cease an activity is benign, that “Nature” will be just fine if left alone.
There is a vast body of research and practice that shows said urban/academic/bureaucrat/activist/lawyer belief to be demonstrably in error. In fact, it is a virtual certainty that this preferred “take action” plan (to preclude human action that MIGHT influence Nature) is usually destructive to wildland habitat and on a massive scale. The reasons are simple but the solutions are not, simply because the reality on the ground is wildly complex.
This planet does not care what it becomes as, contrary to popular myth, adaptive systems are not necessarily self-optimizing. Witness the hundreds of rangeland exclosures across the American West in which human activity is precluded yet the surface proceeds toward “desert pavement,” even after nearly a hundred years of “rest.” Note the thousands of square miles of overstocked forests that have excluded the usual botanical cohorts that comprise a forest. This destructive, distracted, and unaccountable claque should get out and look at the massive riparian erosion due to “canopy preservation.” They should count species-density in fields commanded by introduced species. They should witness what happens to wildlife when predators multiply uncontrolled compared to lands managed by people. Hopefully, they might still be capable of allowing reality to intrude upon their beliefs.
There are observable wildland processes proceeding on an enormous scale that are demonstrably destructive to plant and animal productivity and adaptability. Infestation by exotic species, succession subsequent to cessation of historic anthropogenic disturbance patterns, consequent erosion problems... ALL will continue if we do nothing to reverse them. These problems can require enormous labor and intimate site-specific knowledge to reverse. THEY DO NOT GET BETTER BY THEMSELVES, any more than we can abate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Fixing those problems takes labor, money, time, and knowledge… IOW, investment by people.
Without excess capital, people expend their efforts in survival, not improving human and wildland conditions. So what do these urbane "sophisticates" advocate? Fewer people and more expensive energy along with a massive (and supposedly incorruptible) command and control bureaucracy, all to mitigate a POTENTIAL risk while ignoring destructive processes that are all around them.
Despite nearly a century-long demonstration project in Russia, despite that most of the predations by robber barons in America extended their rapacious behavior via government land use control, or despite that socialized lands in Kenya dedicated to tourism emphasizing large predators destroyed wildlife populations and their supporting habitat, these clueless dupes advocate exactly that collectivist prescription because it serves THEIR beliefs that THEY and their National Geographic, Animal Planet, and Anthropogenic Global Warming deluded ilk know just what to do from the comfort of their comfy urban hovels thousands of miles away. Never mind that the brainwashing in which they immersed themselves on their couches serve primarily the economic interests of the very industrialists sponsoring their causes via their tax-exempt foundations. No, as long as they preclude human activity, they are meritorious and can’t be held accountable for the outcome, despite the observable facts all around them, most of which they are so ignorant as to be incapable of even recognizing them.
Hence, the Precautionary Principle allows amplification of ALL ephemeral or potential risks, while channeling the public away from DOING anything to redress or mitigate real and significant problems. No, instead they invest their time and energy disabling the ability to deal with them.
Yeah, that’ll work.
There is a way to cure that urban mental disorder that has been hidden undiscovered in the Bible for over 3,000 years, until now.
I keep wondering just what I ought to be doing just on the off-chance that there’s a boogeyman in my closet that’s gonna GET ME.
Based on your chart, what we really need to do is erect lots of giant dehumidifiers. I suggest Florida as a good place to start.
Except when it comes to "preemptive action" to deter the enemy in war.
They fool no sound-minded person.
Do you have a good source for those numbers? Not because I don’t believe you, but because I keep seeing similar numbers and have no idea where they come from. Was there a study? Is there controversy? Thanks!
The wrapup is in point #5.
The underlying concept of the whole analysis is that the "warmers" are
TOTALLY LEAVING OUT THE EFFECT OF WATER VAPOR
in their quest to make it look like man's CO2 contribution is significant.
It’s a lot like their “tolerance.”
They perfectly happy tolerating ideas they approve of. They have none for this with which they disagree.
>>Human contribution is INSIGNIFICANT.<<
Yes. I use this analogy: Mankind is a Mouse huddled in the corner of a high school gym. The mouse is statistically irrelevant.
Another way to look at it: We ARE the butterfly effect.
BUMP!
“Simply stated, it is that if there is some risk of an irreversible disaster in taking an action, then that action should be foregone.”
Not quite. The precautionary principle involves writing vague dictates and commands and letting the UN fascists fill in the blanks, depending upon their mood, inclinations and desires. It’s a classical fascist functionary system where bureaucrats control the citizenry and laws can change hour to hour and day by day. Kinda like what we have in America today and what the Founders wrote about in our Declaration of Independence. We used to call it a dictatorship.
It was covered well in the book “The Vampire Economy.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.