Donate Today!

If you find this site useful and informative, please consider making a small contribution.

Get More News

Follow us on Twitterfacebook_box_blue_48gplus-32

Get a daily email of the day's headlines:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Latest Comments

  • Din365 1 hours ago
    What happened was that weaver has realized that attacking the oilsands for the ...

    Read more...

     
  • amirlach 6 hours ago
    The funny part is comparing the funding alarmists have and the Heartland ...

    Read more...

     
  • amirlach 7 hours ago
    That number for Alberta alone is 1.6 TRILLION Barrels. With a not very well ...

    Read more...

     
  • Richard C NZ 8 hours ago
    Hard hitting, comprehensive and damning. But (oddly), just ...

    Read more...

     
  • Gator Yesterday
    Garfunkel works, because you could say that after 'Fakin it', we will now ...

    Read more...

     
  • Robert Yesterday
    Yes, you too can look like Art Garfunkel... (Or Steven Keaton from Family ...

    Read more...

     
  • Robert Yesterday
    Yes, heaven forbid we remain reliant on something that is proven to work ...

    Read more...

     
  • Gator Yesterday
    Hey Mas-ttl! I debated an IPCC lead author via email for about two weeks ...

    Read more...

     
  • Gator Yesterday
    "It is, more subtly, that the oilsands make it all too easy for North Americans ...

    Read more...

     
  • Gator Yesterday
    That's rich coming from the gang that can't shoot straight! :lol: Do they ...

    Read more...

Those who adhere to the global warming theory are using the Precautionary Principle as a reason to act. Their claims are that even if the science is not guaranteed as to the cause and effect of our emissions of CO2 that the Precautionary Principle dictates that we act to reduce our emissions. Thus it’s a default fallback position. That is, if AGW theory has a potential to be wrong, because we cannot have 100% certainty as to the effects of our emissions of CO2, then we must act anyway because the Precautionary Principle (PP) applies.

However, the definition of the Precautionary Principle is required in order to see if this fall back default position is justified. Surprisingly there is no specific definition of PP. Wikipedia has this:

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

It also notes that there are other defintions, and even four sub-definitions aimed at specific realms of society:

  1. Scientific uncertainty should not automatically preclude regulation of activities that pose a potential risk of significant harm (Non-Preclusion PP).
  2. Regulatory controls should incorporate a margin of safety; activities should be limited below the level at which no adverse effect has been observed or predicted (Margin of Safety PP).
  3. Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm should be subject to best technology available requirements to minimize the risk of harm unless the proponent of the activity shows that they present no appreciable risk of harm (BAT PP).
  4. Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no appreciable risk of harm (Prohibitory PP).

 

In layman’s terms it is often touted as “better safe than sorry”.