Luddy,

There is nothing wrong with being both precautionary and cautious providing you can explain what you mean by that. Does this mean that you reject the proactionary principle however; it has sufficient merit to lend credence to your failed precautionary principle, so now you can have your cake and eat it? You said it, you explain it, it’s not my logic Luddy it’s yours.

You firstly rejected the case made by Don, you then offered a whole string of mitigation for the precautionary principle, then you explained why it was necessary and the alarmist basis for using it, then you abandoned the precautionary principle to “adopt” the proactionary principle offered by Don, as a means for achieving the changes “we” must make, then you finished with a flourish of a “bob each way” strategy.

You also telegraphed your inability to rationalize your case by totally ignoring the criticisms I leveled at you and then drew only on my last sentence to attempt to make your case by omission.

Schizophrenic or what?

Boy oh boy Spinny, you’re weeeird!

Simple fact is that it is eminently sensible to be cautious in whatever we do.

The very act of planning our actions is to exercise caution and hence to observe the precautionary principle at least to some extent, if you define it in its broadest sense…. and certainly not in the highly end-of-the-spectrum and totally negative manner that Don has defined it.

And get this: the very act of planning our actions is also to exercise proactivity... at least to some extent!

So there you have it – precautionary and proactive at the same time!!

Sure, it is possible to do one without the other. But it is eminently sensible to do both at the same time.

Now is that still too schitzo for you to comprehend?

No Luddy, you are again going down the side of the issue.

The issue is that Don’s proposal is for the Precautionary Principle, which is inertia or maintenance of the status quo, to be replaced with the Proactionary Principle where action is preferred to inertia.

You can change the definitions and socialize them as much as you like but you cannot have both inertia and action and that is the point being made, they are contradictions in terms unless you wish to rewrite Newton’s Laws of Motion.

You want to assert << So there you have it – precautionary and proactive at the same time!! >>.

No, you have deliberately removed the sub title of Don’s article to eliminate the inertia vs. action context and then given it “your meaning” to make your case. That Luddy, is socializing the topic.

You can’t have your cake and eat it? Sir Isaac Newton says so

The issue that has long bothered Don Aitkin and everyone else who rejects the CAGW scam is the warmmongers' hijacking of the perfectly valid precautionary principle (e.g. basis for taking public risk insurance) to demand we trash the economy just in case CO2 emission is heading the world for climate disaster, and cutting the emission enough might head it off.

The most likely outcome whatever we do or don’t do is that by the time the fossil fuel runs out temperatures won't have perceptibly risen. But there'll be no more fossil fuel. In the meantime frackers seeking the declining traces will have poisoned the country's water table. THEN what do we do?

The precautionary principle properly used as risk management means assessing the size and probability of the risk, the cost of preventive measures, and the probability of the measures really reducing or eliminating the risk. Misused as the warmmongers misuse it means burning the forest down because a little boy cries that he's seen a wolf in it, or paying a door to door insurance salesman a premium to bribe airlines to re-route their flights in case a wheel falls on your roof.

Dear EJ,

Nobody with an ounce of intelligence denies that the
planet has a finite amount of resources or that it
can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution.
If world population continues to grow rapidly,
if industrialism spreads around the world, and if
pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing
rate - and all these things happen - we need to ask the
question where is human society headed?

The most optimistic answer would be that, one way of
another, sweeping social changes await us.

your quote..is accurate..except..it inverts MUCH*..of the present reality

lets say bankers or elites..or autocrats/bureaucrats/organized lobby
or the old school tie..

and the taking of things like bailouts for the rich..
or like 12 billion$..of fuel subsidies for mining..

anyhow AFTER expanding on the first word
YOU ARE CORRECT*..to a POINT.

<<..Activists*
etc

..get away with AVOIDING...the burden of proof trick
by managing perceptions of risk instead of examining the real risks.>>

like bailing out the auto industry
superanuation industry..farmers needing free fences..
or gas frakkers needing free ports rail/pipelines[infrastructure]

<<This move is particularly dangerous because we have limited resources to address a multitude of risks. We cannot afford to make decisions driven by manipulated perceptions.

It's crucial that we rely on a comprehensive, scientifically grounded perspective when choosing which risks have the strongest claim on our attention.

Sixth, and finally, the precautionary principle conflicts with the more balanced approach to risk and harm derived from common law.*>>

thats huge..we went from criminal/damages law
to self regulated statute..or con-tract..law
where the corporate..PERSON*..[ltd/inc]..trust..has subverted right..AWAY from..the people..to the statuted corporate fiction

<<..*Common law holds us liable for injuries we cause,!*!
..our liability being proportionate with the degree of foreseeable risk.>>

no..*the actual DAMAGE*$$
plus costs

<<By contrast, the precautionary principle dismisses liability and acts like a preliminary injunction, but without the involvement of a court, without the burden of proof, and without taking responsibility for harm caused by the injunction.>>

anything we sign..is a CON-tract'
'just put your mark..here
ie [the mark of the beast/..THE paper fiction*]

the crime police dont police