Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

You’ve gone off at a rather odd tangent here since corporations will not be the decision makers in this matter.
Still, since you bring us here, ignorance is not the alternative to the precautionary principle but the root cause of it.

Ignorance is thinking that something less than precautionary principle can protect the public. Does you experience suggests that lobbying and corruption cannot tilt any decision towards business interests where there is no clear cut boundary? Lets imagine a softening of Precautionary principle : “precautionary approach”. So now government can decide if economic costs are larger than public benefit. Basically inflating economic costs (which cannot be verified), can prevent any action.

Buried in the fine print of the Warmist IPCC reports is the acknowledgement that the “models” are actually “scenarios”, meant to illustrate what would happen if a particular set of unverified and untestable guesses were true. As physics professors Gerlich and Tscheushner point out, this amounts to video gaming, and has nil scientific value. Chicken Little crying, “The sky might be falling, and if it does it would be horrible, so give me all your money so I can build shelters for you!” That’s the precautionary principle. Nonsense from start to finish.