Guest essay John Ridgway
The precautionary principle has so often been the subject of articles on this website that one is slightly embarrassed to be adding to the pile. Nevertheless, I couldn’t resist the temptation to add my own two pennyworth, particularly after reading the article posted by Neil Lock on the same subject earlier this month.
Whilst I appreciate that Mr Lock’s essay made a number of important points, it still remains, for me, a deeply problematic article that overlooks the most important aspects of the precautionary principle and post-normal science. So I hope Mr Lock will forgive me if my contribution is framed as a critique of his offering.
The Precautionary Principle and Tyranny
Firstly, I think I need to clarify an important point regarding the development of the precautionary principle. Mr Lock alludes to pre 1980s forms of the principle but declines to identify them. Instead, various aphorisms, such as ‘look before you leap’, are provided, each of which captures an aspect of precaution but none of which had ever been referred to as an enunciation of ‘the precautionary principle’. In fact, the first documented use of the term was a translation of the German expression ‘Vorsorgeprinzip’, as used in the German Clear Act of 1974.
Far from being a nitpicker, I feel I am making an important point here by stressing that, in its original guise of Vorsorgeprinzip, the precautionary principle already embraced the concepts that Mr Lock attributes to the principle’s strong versions, i.e. from the outset the principle emphasized that scientific certainty is not required in order to justify precaution, nor was there ever any suggestion that the burden of proof initially rested with the regulator. There never was a development from a weaker version of the principle that simply called for care and attention prior to proceeding with a venture. Admittedly, since then, several reformulations of the principle have been declared, all of which have simply added to the confusion.1 But to characterize the history of the precautionary principle’s development as one of ever-increasing ‘tyranny’ I feel misses the mark.
Risk Aversion Versus Uncertainty Aversion
Secondly, it seems to me (particularly after reading what Mr Lock had to say regarding risk management) that there is a misconception that the precautionary principle is about aversion to risk. This is not the case; it is instead a principle that promotes uncertainty aversion.2 Rather than encouraging the avoidance of risk, the principle seeks to advise on how to proceed when we have reason to suspect that a risk exists but we do not have enough information to quantify it (or, indeed, even to confirm its existence). For many policy makers, not being in a position to know the scale of a risk is sufficient reason to presume that it is unacceptable, particularly when the stakes are high and the impacts are potentially irreversible. Whereas risk aversion is akin to fear of snakes, uncertainty aversion is akin to fear of the dark, within which one cannot rule out the possible presence of snakes. Once again, this distinction has always been at the core of the precautionary principle.
Rather than taking a more risk averse position, the strong versions of the principle differ from the weak versions with respect to the extent to which sanctions and proscription should be enforced in order to achieve what are considered to be appropriate levels of uncertainty aversion in the face of potentially irreversible outcomes. All versions, both weak and strong, are equally clear in their advocacy of uncertainty aversion over risk aversion and none of them have anything particular to say about how risk averse one should be in any given circumstance. That said, the strongest versions do not even allow for the calculation of risk (or costs and benefits, for that matter) presumably since this is seen as futile in the face of the uncertainties. This is not so much a draconian attitude as a defeatist retreat from rationality.
To further emphasize this point, I would refer the reader to the UNESCO COMEST (2005) review of the principle, in which it is stated that deep uncertainty can preclude the calculation of probability and hence the ability to evaluate risk levels. In such circumstances, it is maintained, one cannot then base decisions upon calculated risk. Instead, one has to base the decisions upon an aversion to the uncertainty upon which the posited risk is predicated, combined with a consideration of the impact defined for the risk.
In such circumstances, plausibility takes on a new importance3 and imagination can run riot. If unchecked, this can result in credence being placed in fanciful concerns. The obvious solution is to reduce uncertainty by undertaking further research. However, if the posited risk is formulated in such a way as to suggest that resulting delays are likely to heighten the risk level, then uncertainty aversion, i.e. the precautionary principle, will win the day.
I think I should stress at this point that I seek to clarify the logic behind the precautionary principle but not to defend it. There are many good reasons for distrusting the principle. For example, as well as the cognitive bias of uncertainty aversion one can add omission bias, the focusing effect and neglect of probability as biases that both underpin and undermine the principle. You can also add to this the fact that the logic of the principle is profoundly self-defeating, since the deep uncertainty that precludes reliable risk calculations can apply whether taking action or not. Thereby, the principle can be used to simultaneously justify proscription of both action and inaction.
In summary, whilst I share Mr Lock’s disquiet with regard to the precautionary principle, I suspect I do so for different reasons. I do not see any evidence of ‘perversion’ of a basic concept, and I think that the distinction between weak and strong versions is misrepresented by his article. However, I do accept that there is plenty of scope, for those who are politically motivated, to take advantage of the perverting influence of uncertainty aversion and its distortion of the perception of risk.
Quality and Evidence
Turning to post-normal science, I find myself more closely aligned with Mr Lock but, even here, I feel that his article misrepresents.
The kinship between post-normal science and the precautionary principle lies in the fact that they are both attempts to address the same problem – how to proceed when uncertainty and expedience conspire to undermine confidence. However, whereas fear and various conceptions of political pragmatism may lie behind both, post-normal science differs in claiming epistemological roots. It is the non-absolutist nature of the Popperian philosophy that is taken by some as a free reign to take a postmodern stance towards scientific knowledge, in which all subjective opinion is valid as long as it is to some extent evidence based. Deciding between competing hypotheses then becomes a democratic process moderated by quality control. The danger with this view is that rhetoric gains undue significance, and consensus itself is taken as evidence. This is precisely the error made by the IPCC when they suggest that high levels of confidence are justified even when consensus exists in the face of low quality evidence.4
It isn’t the problem-solving nature of post-normal science that troubles me, since, after all, this is a feature shared with the standard Popperian approach. What I object to is the suggestion that science is a democracy in which authority, credentials and orthodoxy carry weight over evidence. This is not an inherent feature of post-normal science, but it is definitely a potential result of its misapplication. In particular, as the quality of evidence falls (or, more cynically, as appetite for evidence weakens) one will eventually arrive at a position where falsifiability and reproducibility of results become irrelevant. It is only at this point that post-normal science can be fairly dismissed as ‘nonsience’.
A Call for Restraint
I hope this article does not come across as being too disobliging or harsh in its criticism of Mr Lock’s viewpoint. I do not dispute that both the precautionary principle and post-normal science are problematic. However, I feel that criticisms of them should be qualified by a full appreciation of their provenance and purpose. By talking about ‘tyranny’ and ‘nonscience’ we run the risk of hyperbole that does not stand up to close examination. Concerns regarding the precautionary principle and post-normal science are valid enough without overstating the case.
Notes
1 Part of the confusion regarding the precautionary principle lies in the fact that it isn’t actually a principle, it isn’t just about precaution and there are now several declarations of it, all different but all claiming to represent the principle.
2 All risk is predicated upon uncertainty but it is not a function of uncertainty. Instead, uncertainty impacts upon the perception of risk, often, though not always, resulting in an increased interest in the potential for risk. Risk aversion and uncertainty aversion (or ‘ambiguity aversion’, as it is sometimes known) are, therefore, very different. For example, Daniel Ellsberg, in 1961, demonstrated how logically equivalent gambles may be treated unequally, simply because individuals consider subjective probabilities to be less reliable than objectively determined probabilities. Consequently, individuals can be fooled into accepting gambles with a lesser payoff, in violation of expected utility theory. These individuals are not more risk averse, they have simply misperceive the risk because they are concerned by the uncertainty or ambiguity inherent in subjective probabilities.
3 As explained in the COMEST review, “the unquantified possibility is sufficient to trigger the consideration of the Precautionary Principle”.
4 See, Mastrandrea M. D., et al (2011). The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change 108, 675 – 691. doi: 10.1007 / 10584 – 011 – 0178 – 6, ISSN: 0165-0009, 1573 – 1480.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you, John. My knowledge of the precautionary principle was rudimentary and your exquisite exposition of it is delectable.
Consider this argument.
There is a small chance that the Catholic religion is correct, and that not to accept it will lead to eternal damnation.
Therefore the rational being will accept Catholicism, because the costs of rejecting it if true are huge, but the costs of accepting it, if false, are small.
So far everything seems fine, but on my way to church one Sunday I meet the Imam of my local mosque. We chat. He explains to me that if Islam is correct, my continuing in Catholicism will lead to eternal damnation, and so the rational thing for me to do is move immediately to Islam. After all, the costs of eternal damnation are high, the costs of moving to Islam not so much.
As I stand hesitating, a chap carrying a laptop comes up to us and says, suppose there is only a small chance that global warming will wipe out the human race….
Going back to Pascal, it would have been easy for him to accept Catholicism on his death bed, since at that point, what difference would it make?
I don’t know if Pascal knew anything about Allah, or what he would have said. If in doubt, believe in everything? There’s a multiverse for that.
What it all comes down to in practice is: It’s a rationalization. It justifies what you want to do, whatever that is. Which isn’t caution or precaution at all, but FUD.
As I stand hesitating, a chap carrying a laptop, a thermometer, a notebook and a few graphs; ocean heat for example, comes up to us and says suppose there is only a small chance that global warming will wipe out the human race….
I’d look at it carefully, check his or her qualifications and then decide for my self where the probability lies. Having unquestioned faith in an unscientific, ancient myth is quite different.
” Having unquestioned faith in an unscientific, ancient myth is quite different.”
Yet many still “believe” in global warming, human CO2 forced climate change etc.
Go figure that one out
Having unquestioned faith in the belief that religion is disproven is quite unscientific.
Zaz,
But if you act to the degree being sold as necessary on that small chance, you almost at p > 0.99 empoverish the humanity and likely send human existence back to life being harsh, brutish, and short. Excepting of course for the ruling elites, the uber wealthy, and their families.
Choose carefully.
The Chinese, 2000 years ago, (1) built the Great Chinese Wall, which can be seen from the Moon, as PP against the Mongol invaders…. and (2) but they opened the wall themselves, once the Mongols stood in front of it…… here we have the application of the PP twice at its best.
The Precautionary Principle should be, “Don’t do anything stupid to prevent what will profit those “raising the alarm” in either in cash, power or prestige (ego is also a strong driver).”
In “climate science™” the Precautionary Principle is use when their anti-science projections and fairy-tales cannot persuade anyone any more.
It is sign that they have LOST THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUEMENT.
The Precautionary Principle is invoked because many are afraid that higher levels of CO2 will soon fry the Earth. Then, whatever solution is proposed will be rejected by invoking the PP. Around and around we go.
Possibly the true precautionary Principle is;
Fools Names And Fools Faces will alway be found in public places.
In this, save the planet from the imaginary doom of carbon dioxide induced Global Warming, case the true precaution is this. Governments are made up of bureaucrats and fronted by bad actors know as politicians, who engage in Poly Ticks.
History is clear,starkly clear, these groups have an unholy lust for other peoples wealth.
Your time and energy is to be theirs, all profit to the parasites,all losses to the producers.
Nothing different has emerged from one civilization rise and fall to the next.
Our bureaucrats and their political comrades, steal as long and as hard as they can, until civil society falls.
The modern Kleptocracy seems able to destroy a democracy in 30-60 years.
Zimbabwe , South Africa,Venezuela..add your own there are plenty to chose from.
Watch Canada, a country were the freeloaders now outnumber the producers.
Observe how quickly true human rights are stripped from holders of property as this kleptocracy collapses.
If you truly subscribe to the precautionary principal, you avoid airplanes, ships/boats, cars and bicycles. If you don’t, then your much bigger problem is hypocrisy.
Andrew Klaven dismantles the Left’s use of the alarmist rhetoric/PP (without calling it the PP) as only Andrew can with humor.
So go get a beer or your favorite cocktail. And then start Andrew Klaven’s fun half-hour (28 minutes) of dismantling the Left’s invocation of precautionary principles.
Is he more, or less, pissed than Foster Brooks?
Is he more, or less, pissed than Foster Brooks? I was referring to George Soros!
Doesn’t the precautionary principle apply to itself? If applying the pronciple – killing fossil fuel usage to avoid possible catastrophic global temperature rises – has the risk of economic and social collapse or hardship that kills or injures millions, doesn’t the principle say we should do NOTHING until we have more certainty?
Ahhhh. The rub is that non-human life has large value, while human life has little. In fact, per Erhlich, Club of Rome and McKibben, humans are a virus on the planet. No value.
The precautionary principle as used applies only outside the human element. Except for the social, liberal, progressive elite, who, I suppose, are SUPERhuman, and therefore not part of the common human element we despise.
Yes it does it’s a logic fallacy which is why it doesn’t exist in science
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle\
It’s always used by the same groups as an argument and science uses Risk Assessment and “using Precautionary_principle” would itself be classed as a risk with a non zero probability.
Precautionary principle summed up . You lost .
Same witch burners different era .
PS…. warming is GOOD … cooling is BAD and as everyone knows climate changes . Get over it .We are not ever going to control it . Nice try though Liberals .. try to find something else to satisfy your personality disorder .
Oh boy, here we go again with all this prejudice against the Precautionary Principle and not a jot of actual reference to the environmental issues that led to its formulation and its development. I had a hand in both. Firstly, the main thrust in the early 1980s came from fisheries scientists in Germany – NOT from environmentalists. Prior to the PP, the dominant paradigm for toxic substance disposal was ‘dilute and disperse’ – for organochlorines, mercury, arsenic, lead, sulphur dioxide, radionuclides…..and many others. This spawned a massive expansion of monitoring networks and toxicology labs. That was to constitute a vested interest in the dispersion paradigm (much as computer modelling expanded and led to the current vested interest in AGW).
There thus arose a constituency for the science of modelling the behaviour of pollutants (or ‘contaminants’, if no harm was obvious). This constituency naturally developed a belief in the scientific prowess demonstrated by labs and monitoring, modelling and regulation. And the regulators shared that belief – from government level, to regional conventions to protect the oceans and air quality, all the way to the UN’s special conventions such as the London Dumping Convention (that sanctioned, for example, the dumping of radwaste in international waters).
What the fisheries scientists noticed was how the environment did not follow the models (sound familiar?) – mercury and organochlorines were accumulating where they were not supposed to, as was plutonium discharged to the Irish Sea.
Ah yes – this is then where pre-post-normal science had its finest hours….the defence of indefensible models, in particular by the UN ‘group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine pollution’ (GESAMP). Their belief was of course accompanied by their vested interests in labs, PhD student funding and junkets flying off to UN meetings where they felt they were saving the planet.
Your correspondents do not account they actual story of events leading up to the dreaded Rio summit of 92. A small group of real scientists attacked the modellers – but with the help of dreaded Greenpeace and others to fund attendance at meetings and basic research – without which it would not have been possible. It was not Greenpeace that won the arguments on the floor of the UN or the Paris Commission, Berlin Commission, and other conventions, – it was the scientists. They did not use post-normal science – they used critical analysis, borne of years of painstaking review of real data and published papers to expose the failures of the models.
Lets take one example – polychlorinated biphenals (PCBs) disposed to landfill and oceans with the assumption they were relatively harmless. Decades later, as they begin to accumulate in the food chain of Inuit people, labs studies show that they severely compromise the mammalian immune system. Of course, they cannot now be regulated. Inuit are advised not to follow their traditional indigenous lifestyle. We all still live in the hope that the great whales and dolphins will survive the current high levels of contamination – but there is more and more evidence that they have problems with immunity and breeding.
Now – in all this, it is evident at nobody can prove that a contaminant is causing an effect. There is correlation, but as we all know, that is not proof. Yet ‘normal’ science under dliute and disperse rules held that regulators should allow dispersion until such time as environmental evidence showed ‘harm’. This was the burden of proof – a burden actually, because to do that, environmentalists (including government scientists) would need a lot of money to collect the evidence. And guess what? Little was available. The null hypothesis is good science – except, who is going to pay for disproving it?
In the 1980s, I started out as a scientist-lawyer with my own Oxford-based research outfit funded by foundations and eventually clients (we always held copyright). Government and industry hated us – at first. Within five years, governments were asking our advice, and within 10, I was advising the International Maritime Organisation on redrafts of its Annexes for toxic substances. I also was invited to sit on editorial boards of major journals on pollution control and lectured widely in Universities. The journals also published invited papers on criticising the UN. This personal history is detailed in my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ – where all references can be found.
The history of regulation – by committees of scientific experts, is replete with error – the most egregious is the 15 year defense by every single science institution of the practice of X-raying pregnant women. I worked with the single lone voice – an expert in epidemiology, NOT an environmentalist, who was opposed and villified – Dr Alice Stewart….eventually, data and science prevailed. I use this as an example whenever I am told (on climate science) ‘you can’t possibly be right because very science institution agrees with the concensus’. Stewart died having saved countless children’s lives (X-rays in pregnancy produced excess cases of leukaemia in the children), and received not a single honour from the scientific establishment. The man who opposed her for all those years received a knighthood.
WUWT performs a great service to the world – in highlighting new research, providing real data, criticising junk science….but it lets itself down in promulgating the views of the ill-informed and prejudiced anti-environmentalists. Furthermore – the post-normal stuff…..it is not all to be rubbished….all of science, and most especially, scientific committees, is pervaded by the social world of values – from the construction of an hypothesis (ie what gets looked at and why), to the funding, the take-up, the rewards and acolades…as any follower of the Mann saga will know…..there is even gender bias! For example, the massive prejudice on both sides of the debate regarding cycles, irregular periodicity, and the dark side of the Sun!
Peter,
On your accusation that I am an ill-informed and prejudiced anti-environmentalist, I offer the following response.
Firstly, on the subject of provenance of the PP, I am informed by the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. However, If you can offer a documented use of the expression, “the precautionary principle”, provided within the fisheries industry and pre-dating the 1970 draft of the 1974 publication of the German Clean Air Act, then I am sure that the Commission would be interested to hear of it. In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that your accusations of being ill-informed on this matter should be directed at them rather than myself.
Secondly, given that you point out that the article contains, “not a jot of actual reference to the environmental issues that led to its formulation”, it beggars belief that you can therefore conclude that I am an anti-environmentalist. The lack of logic inherent in a deductive reasoning that is based upon zero information is so stark that I struggle to know where to start rebutting it. Perhaps your accusations would be better levelled at someone who wrote an article on environmentalism rather than someone who quite clearly did not.
Instead of providing rambling tales of your exploits and conquests (with thinly veiled plugs for your book) I would be much more interested if you were to actually address the central premise of the article, i.e. that a proper understanding of the precautionary principle requires a full understanding of the relationship between risk and uncertainty and how the presence of the latter can distort perception of the former. You might also wish to explain why it is wrong for me to suggest that the legitimacy of the precautionary principle does not preclude its misapplication, and why such a view should be dismissed as “prejudice against the precautionary principle”.
In may come as a surprise to you but, irrespective of its provenance, the precautionary principle finds application in fields far removed from environmentalism. However, many of us that apply it (such as my colleagues in the safety-critical systems engineering field), do so guardedly and only when there are no alternatives. You might want to ask yourself why that is.
John
Hello John…thanks for your reply, a deserved rebuke for my hasty post…I was over-influenced by the responses to your blog rather than the content…after so many years of following WUWT, I have seen a lot of prejudgement based upon limited analysis. I had little time available to go into the detail your post deserves – and little time now. BTW the reference to the book was to say that it contains a longer story with references – it is available for £2 these days second hand on Amazon, so I make nothing from the plug!. And these days, especially in England, given the amount of ad-hominem ripostes in the climate debate, I try to outline my actual involvement and experience (exploits?? I don’t think of the work in that way – it was a labour of duty with very little excitement or reward).
I am only familiar with the evolution of PP regarding oceanic and atmospheric pollution. Some of that history is contained in Tim Jackson (ed) Clean Production Strategies, Stockholm Environment Institute (1993) – and in a joint paper:
1993 The Precautionary Principle and the Prevention of Marine Pollution. (with T.Jackson). Chemistry & Ecology, 7: (1-4), pp123-134.
My critique of the UN’s position is in:
1993 The State of the Marine Environment ‘A critique of the work and the role of the Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP). Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 3: 120-127.
Much of what was wrong at the UN in 1993 went unfixed and resurfaced in the work of the IPCC.
The upside of the adoption of precaution was the rapid deployment of ‘clean production’ technologies, which my former colleague, Tim Jackson, pioneered. In almost all industrial sectors studied, it was possible to do away with the most toxic substances altogether – and to save money in the process. A special UN unit was set up to provide industry with examples of best practice, costs etc., and the regulators gave each sector a timescale coherent with the cycles of capital renewal…..win, win strategy.
My purpose is not to rant at the prejudice so often displayed by climate sceptics – rather it is to try to explain that without the PP the marine and atmospheric environment could be a lot worse. We were accused by many in those days of being ‘anti-science’….but the PP simply recognised the limits of scientific knowledge and the methods it uses…the uncertainties, and how best to act in the face of some unresolvable uncertainty. The ecological environment is perhaps a more complex and less predictable environment than that of engineering, but there too, the human factor is ever present and uncertain (as for example at Chernobyl, where engineers broke their own safety rules).
The PP as formulated in the UN’s conventions (I am much less familiar with its history – just the effort it took to overturn the ‘dilute and disperse’ mentality) always contained the caveat, ‘so far as reasonable taking into account economic costs’ – and thus if ‘greens’ seek to apply it to CO2, they have to look at the cost to society of reducing emissions. That is problematic for such a large scale and uncertain exercise – as we saw with the Stern report….externalised costs and impacts are hard to estimate, whereas replacement technologies are easier, and we end up with the analyst too easily choosing factors that will support an initial prejudgement. In the case of climate change…the retooling costs are huge, the impact of renewables also not inconsiderable, yet the impacts of rising CO2 entirely uncertain (especially with so much uncertainty regarding the main driving force!).
Peter,
Thank you for that clarification. Your willingness to concede an error marks you out as a man of integrity, and for that you have my respect. For my part, I trust that you appreciate that, “rambling tales of your exploits and conquests” were the words of an aggrieved man. I actually found your post to be more interesting than I was prepared to admit.
Undoubtedly, our differing backgrounds and experiences will colour our views on the PP, but we don’t need to explore Brokeback Mountain territory to appreciate that we have much in common. Specifically, we both feel that too much of the rhetoric regarding the PP is ill-informed (this is why I was particularly disappointed to be on the receiving end of that very criticism). I trust that you will agree, little of the commentary that my article attracted was particularly supportive of its main argument and, quite frankly, I did not expect it to be.
Whilst I do not endorse everything that was said in the COMEST 2005 report, I do feel that if everyone at least read it, then the debates on WUWT would be all the more interesting for it. In particular, it would be refreshing to see more said regarding the positive applications of the PP. This can be done without being blind to its drawbacks.
John
The perfect analogy for the climateer’s dangerous Cagw fear is Bert Russell’s tiny orbiting ceramic teapot btween Mars and Jupiter.
http://www.maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/russells-teapot-does-it-hold-water.html
It was not in CO2 per se but only in human activity sourced CO2, which is telling. It makes it a construct much like the tea pot. Also telling is that it was Maurice Strong, a Canadian comnist and high school drop out who organized the Stockholm Conference in the 1970s(?)formulated the UNFCC, organized the Rio Conference – Kyoto, and created IPCC.
Brilliant guy; non-scientist. He launched his storm in a teacup for a reason more ulterior than for a concern about Global Warming and if you read Russell’s quote to the end, you will see what a fit the teapot is to CAGW.
You suggest that the precautionary principle should rather initiate full study of such issues that may have dire consequences to see if we can get information to understand the nature and possibly semi-quantify its effect. Well, we’ve done that and even foolishly spent trillions already to mitigate something that is yet to stick up above the noise of natural variability. We’ve adjusted data: temperatures, sea level, probably ice extent and ice sheet thicknesses and have begun to change indices of hurricane strength by measuring winds higher up in the funnel this past year where wind speeds are the greatest and reporting these as the strength. This fudge itself is valuable data showing the frustration and impatience of those whose research grants and even jobs depend on man caused disaster being shown.
So, what do we know about Global warming? Well, we know that their science projected temperatures increases from CO2 that are 3x as great as has happened over 40 years, and this including being able to refresh their forecasts every 5 years! Moreover, we know that natural variation is strong enough that during growth in atmospheric CO2 of 30% over two decades coincided with an hiatus in temperature rise! We know that there is a natural, roughly sinusoidal, movement of temperatures and cycle of other weather elements – droughts, floods, etc over periods of 60-70 yrs and that the rise in temperature that caused the alarm and the following hiatus that caused so much panic in the GW research community (Google climate blues that caused career ending depression in a large number of clisci researchers), coincided with this natural cycle (a few researchers actually predicted the flattening of temperatures). This means that the better part of the 80s- 90s warming itself was from natural variation on climate.
Conclusion: 1)With no curtailment of today’s rate of fossil fuel usage, the wager that no disaster scientist would bet against (given the motivation for fudging), even given odds, is that the temperature will not exceed the vaunted 1.5C increase by 2100 8n any case.
2) The true price of carbon is negative. Over 30 years the planet’s forest cover (habitat for wildlife) has expanded 14% (2014), harvests have doubled (a significant part because of increased CO2) the rest of the forests have “fattened” and plankton in the oceans have increased the base of the ocean food chain. Coupled with the modest warming and an attenuation in population growth, the best bet is we are heading for Garden of Eden Earth with growing prosperity for all. This is the most likely conclusion that can be drawn from the data from science to date.
Mods. Perhaps this would make a good lively discussion thread?
As used, it is a club to stop things you don’t like. In a typical case, you exaggerate the risk, minimize the cost of precaution, and make extreme demands. So for climate change, the 3000 year process of disintegration of the antarctic ice sheet under the high warming scenario is treated as if it happens right away, the cost of mitigation is ignored, the opportunity cost (spending on mitigation vs on other things) is ignored, and the benefits of warming and CO2 rise are ignored.
It is like people who have OCD and wash their hands or shower so much that it cause skin problems and uses up their time or someone who is afraid to leave their house. Under the strong precautionary principle, it should not be permitted to develop any new product, the internet should not have been developed, and the risk of crossing the Atlantic to settle the New World or of crossing the Great Plains in wagons would certainly never have been tolerated. In California, we see the “just say no” consequences when they had a drought and did not have enough reservoirs because no one would let them be built and during the fires because reducing fuels might impact the vegetation.
Consuming two liters of water in 10 minutes will reduce serum electrolyte levels to dangerous and sometimes fatal levels. According to the precautionary principle water is therefore toxic and should be banned.
“…By talking about ‘tyranny’ and ‘nonscience’ we run the risk of hyperbole that does not stand up to close examination. Concerns regarding the precautionary principle and post-normal science are valid enough without overstating the case.”
But you do note how snugly the precautionary principle fits with tyranny and non-science or official science. Taking a political view of the principle’s uses and provenance – and the potential for hyperbole notwithstanding—there is ample reality from the past in which it and tyranny have flourished together. Friedrich A. Hayek’s 1944 economic analyses in his Road to Serfdom, particularly Chapter 11, “The Death of Truth,” is apposite here.
In it, he points out that in the centrally planned state, Truth itself ceases to have its old meaning. It no longer describes how an individual, as sole judge of a piece of evidence or its proponent’s credibility, decides if it warrants belief according to experience and good conscience. The “truth” becomes something laid down by authority, something that must be believed in the interest of maintaining the organized effort’s unity (although it may need to be altered as exigencies require). He added, in effect, that it was necessary to personally experience how, when differences of opinion in all of knowledge become political issues, and the sole property of authority, a grim Orwellian anxiety (defeatism?) emerges – the loss of a sense of the meaning of truth and the dispiriting cynicism about it, the vanished spirit of competitive independent inquiry as well as confidence in the power of rational analysis and conviction. Differences of opinion in knowledge become political issues for an authority alone to decide. No short list, he thought, could convey their gravity. Perhaps most alarming was that this contempt for intellectual liberty does not wait for a totalitarian system to appear. In his own time he found it everywhere among intellectuals who embraced, even if unconsciously, a collectivist faith and, as champions of doctrinal purity, were acclaimed and rewarded even in still liberal countries as intellectual leaders. And they not only condoned the worst of anti-intellectual oppression intrinsic to socialism, but even professed intolerance while purporting to speak for the scientists of liberal countries.
While restraining inquiry consistent with the precautionary principle does not necessarily imply tyranny, tyranny needs the precautionary principle to prevent inappropriate inquiry.
Tom,
I accept the point you are making. I think what I was trying to say was that there is nothing inherently tyrannical in the precautionary principle. I fear that making such a strong claim detracts from the argument against the principle’s abuse.
John
After the last precautionary principle article here,
I was hoping that would be the last one for a long time,
but then came this long-winded article,
that might make a point somewhere,
but I fell asleep repeatedly while reading it.
.
The writing is poor,
with far too many
extra long sentences.
.
It should have started
with a conclusion
and then
defended that conclusion.
.
It should have ended
with a brief summary,
written as talking points.
.
The author is less interesting
than watching snow melt
on a warm winter day.
.
However I do agree
with his first sentence (below):
.
“The precautionary principle has so often been
the subject of articles on this website
that one is slightly embarrassed
to be adding to the pile.”
.
I agree the author should be embarrassed,
and his article could be compared
with a pile !
.
.
Here’s my view of the precautionary principle
as it is used by leftists — what it really
means does not matter — how it is used
does matter:
(1) Leftist:
The science is settled.
So do as we say,
or life on Earth will end
as we know it
(2) Leftist:
Even if the science is not settled,
do as we say, because we say
life on Earth will end as we know it.
.
.
The summary of (1) and (2)
is:
“We leftists are not going to debate
our (junk) “science” with you skeptics,
so just do as we say, or we will
call you a science denier”.
My climate blog
for people with common sense:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com