Look, I was going to write a comment and got halfway through. But something cautioned me not to so I experienced several minuits of inertia. Then I thought, 'Damn it. Join the debate! Be proactive!'

Then my wife said, "Please hang out the washing instead of wasting your time talking to the OLO crowd about rubbish like whether God needs a special language or whether the Israelis should kill all the Palestinians."

As I hung out the clothes I wondered if I was procrastinating, rationalizing or putting off a fight or flight moment.

Then a bee stung me and, throwing inhibition, caution and inertia to the wind, I yelled and ran inside.

Was this reactionary or just instinctive?

The precautionary principle has been distorted by green groups to mean something very different.

In essence it means that if you are deciding whether to do something new, one should analyse in depth all the possible risks, and take action to minimize or eliminate them, and if you can't then simply don't do it.

The modern "green" meaning now includes panicking the moment that any bone head predicts that the sky is going to fall. Especially since the greens have a predilection for fabricating and exaggerating evidence and consequences.

Just look at the huge scare campaign against GM crops, none of which have come to pass.

Objections 1 to 5 are just different ways of saying the same thing: that you don't like the way it "shifts the burden of proof". But that depends where you think the burden of proof belonged to begin with.
"Precautionary Principle" is just a Latinate name for sound risk management.
Before a new pharmaceutical comes onto the market, we generally accept that it should be subjected to substantial safety tests. Drugs are not considered innocent of harmful side-effects until proven guilty. We have an inherent bias against the new, for the excellent reason that for all the ills of prior art at least we know what those ills are, and that we have survived them.
The same innate conservatism underlies attitudes to new scientific theories, whether or not it is justified in that context.
When it comes to climate change, the trick is to realise that although the Industrial Revolution began 250 years ago, in geophysical terms it is still a new experiment. The clearest message from the science is that it is taking humanity into uncharted climate waters.
The sixth point in the article contrasts it to common law. But why should we assume common law is all? Historically, common law is about penalties and compensation after the offence. It does not cope with offenders unable to pay compensation, nor with damage so cataclysmic that no amount of compensation is relevant. Where common law fails, risk management must take up the task.

Ludwig, you need to be careful when discussing things with Spindoc, he has a funny way of seeing the world.

Once a person has committed to an errant path, evidence of mistakes will not be sought, and if they are found, they will be ignored and denied.

The farther the person goes, the worse the self-deception gets. The situation might seem appalling to outside observers, but the traveller on the path will delude himself or put on a brave face.

This is exactly where Spindoc likes to take people. Be careful

Geoff

'Nobody with an ounce of intelligence '

seems to be a favourite cliche Lexi to shut down anyone who disagrees with you lately.

davidG/quote..<<..rationalizing or putting off..a fight or flight moment...>>

no just another,..pre-cautionary principle
lets rationalize..

you didnt put it off
but was called off..by one needing your assistance

..<<Then a bee stung me and, throwing inhibition,
caution and inertia..to the wind, I yelled and ran inside.>>

and posted

[the beeis a sign..to let it be
[ie there is more to this..than hanging out the washing
like what specificly was your thought..just before the bee stung
or what article..specificly..can give a clue too[even color/type of peg]..or where in the action..of cloth hanging..the sting occured

it could be the cautionary principle
but likely was just a call..to..*'be;..[or let it be]
or..let who will get stung..be stung....

regardless..if a sign..
it links to the real-time issues..there/then..in mind

thus..<<..Was this reactionary or just instinctive?>>

the bee sting..was just an upset be-ing..
for reason of posting the post..it was likely a reaction..not instinct

i would say a learning opportunity
rather than a wake-up call..

but its true meaning..lies..or rather..*lays within you
play with it..there is a pre-caution..every time a principle bites the dust.