My favourite formulation of the Precautionary Principle is this:

"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout."

which I'm sure I recall reading in the books by E Nesbit, though Google doesn't seem to be able to find it there.

My second favourite is Pascal's Wager, mainly because so much has already been said or written about its failings that can be directly applied to the claims of the warmistas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

And perhaps the best response is that attributed to Viscount Falkland: "When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision."

"I wish I'd written that"

Hear, hear.

Fair enough Don… if you define the precautionary principle in the worst possible manner.

I wouldn’t define it as grimly as you do.

I don’t think that any of the six ‘weak spots’ necessarily apply. For example; we certainly do not need to assume the worst case scenario before it is pertinent to observe the precautionary pricinciple. We simply need to feel that not observing it is likely to place us in a worse situation than if we observed it.

There is a lot of merit in being cautious, erring on the side of caution, exercising the precautionary principle, or however you’d like to say it…. as opposed to just blundering forth and not worrying about the consequences.

The whole tenet of your article is that the precautionary principle is fundamentally flawed and the proactionary principle is what we should be observing.

Well, I’d say the latter is certainly true, but the former certainly isn’t.

The two are by no means mutually exclusive!

Of course the proactionary principle should apply in circumstances where we need to change our ways of doing things.

We should be both very proactive and very cautious!

Thoughtful comments, Ludwig. Balance is the key.

The precautionary principle has been adopted as a defense mechanism for the lack of facts.

That defense mechanism is stunningly exemplified in Ludwig’s post by “socializing” reality.

The implication is that Don is guilty of presenting it “in the worst possible manner”, it is “grimly” defined, the six “weak spots” don’t “necessarily apply”, we “do not need to assume the worst case scenario” (but we do).

We do however need to create sufficient fear and threat by feeling “that not observing it is likely to place us in a worse situation than if we observed it”.

That “erring on the side of caution” is necessary because without is we risk the confected alternative of “just blundering forth and not worrying about the consequences”.

Then we have the misdirection that “The whole tenet of your article is that the precautionary principle is fundamentally flawed and the proactionary principle is what we should be observing”.

No Luddy, what I think he is saying is that it is the application of the precautionary principle to CAGW that is flawed.

“Of course the proactionary principle should apply in circumstances where we need to change our ways of doing things”. Really? So the proactionary principle should now apply when, in someone’s unsubstantiated opinion “we” need to change our ways?

So now the “proactionary principle” has been hijacked, seconded to the CAGW “cause and can now be used without a blink of hypocrisy, to get us to change our ways instead of the “precautionary principle”.

Socialization often goes full circle and ends up schizophrenic, so where do you end up Luddy? You end up with this gem, “We should be both very proactive and very cautious!”

LOL, I rest my case

<< LOL, I rest my case >>

( :> |

LOL indeed, Spinny!

Now… when you come down off of whatever narcotic substance you were high on when you wrote that extraordinary post, perhaps you would be so kind as to LOGICALLY explain what on earth you think is wrong with being both proactive AND cautious!!