According to Spendocrat:

"A small chance is still way too much."

There is a small chance that a large meteorite may crash into the earth, putting an end to all life here.
There is a small chance that someone may use the DNA from the blood inside a mosquito to clone dinosaurs that may terrorize the earth.
There is a very good chance that if Spendocrat had twice as many brains, he/she would be a half wit.

daveinfloripa

Hear, hear, daveinfloripa! To paraphrase a comment by humourist PJ O'Rourke in the context of a different issue, it shows a high degree of generosity that when brain's like Spendocrat spout their confused and erroneous fears about global warming, scientists will investigate the global warming.

This is a poorly argued piece. The professor's case seems to be built upon the assumption that the precautionary principle is "intellectually vapid". There is, of course, nothing intellectually vapid about the precautionary principle. It is intellectually sound and the very basis of one of the world's largest industries, the insurance industry.

In case the professor is not aware of it, a principle cannot be dismissed by attaching a derogatory adjective to it. The greenhouse proponents are right to argue that we should be taking out insurance, i.e. that just IN CASE the warming of the climate is human-induced, we should do everything we can to modify our activities to avoid potentially catastrophic outcomes.

I would have thought that was perfectly obvious.

What if it is NOT human induced, but just natural variability? There should also be a contingency plan for that, too.

I hope this advances the debate just a little. At the very least, I would expect some supporting evidence for the very big call of "intellectually vapid", rather than empty rhetoric. Please justify your claims, or we cannot take you seriously.