...
On another thread I pointed out that more people are dying each year in Africa right now, directly or indirectly from lack of affordable energy, than the worst case predictions say will be harmed by AGW 100 years from now. Yet there are still those who would restrict growth in energy provision in that continent.
If we apply the precautionary principle to the policy of restricting energy provision where it is so desperately needed - and with the associated and undeniable risk of immediate and continued harm to those peoples - then the burden of proof that no harm will come of it lies firmly with those proposing the restrictions. I am clear in my mind that it is not being applied in that way and is not therefore protecting the public.
Yes energy is an issue in Africa, but GW is an issue as well. So now a country in Africa is building a coal plant somewhere inside. Should they consider “Precautionary principle” - I think it is their business on what principles they rely. On the other hand if a country like USA want to interfere in foreign interest I think they should apply their own principles.
Now lets say a different scenario USA sponsors international AID to an African country - a concentrated solar power plant or PV panels for rural homes, a gas power station, wind-belt generators for lighting or maybe a FF plant someday. Should they apply their own principles? Probably they should.
So I guess the question is : can you use “Precautionary principle” for evil? I think it is possible, but much harder than “Precautionary approach”.
...
Such “aid” has a proven and totally predictable history of ending up mostly monetized in the pockets of the local Big Man and Friends. Further, it takes many years for such initiatives to reach any sizable portion of the population. Meanwhile, they start dying. Theoretically, at some point the declining surviving population curve meets the slowly rising “delivered aid” curve and things stabilize.
But even such a Machiavellian approach misses the point. The “harm” that was predicted to be done by the CO2 generation prevented was minuscule by comparison with the death its prevention causes.
Not to mention that the “harm” is not just theoretical, but imaginary. Warm periods of recorded and paleo-history have been boom times. Ask the Ice Man, Romans, Vikings, and Medieval Warm Period (and Renaissance) inhabitants.
OK here’s how it works. If Breakable (say - purely for example) wants to do something “precautionary” with a clear conscience, he can buy 100 Precautionary Offsets (P Off’s for short) from me at $10 each and I will commit - in order to restore the natural balance you understand - to immediately do something rash with his $1,000. That way everyone is happy and the world is saved again. (Al would be proud)
This might actually work.
The question is who guarantees in case of default?
There you go being cautious again. Your racking up a big P Off bill here.
I think it is obsene to equate human life to a monetary value but you are missing my point (my responsibility). What I am saying is economic mismanagement costs lives, environmental mismanagement costs lives, halting growth/development costs lives. All these factors need to be considered. No one is more important than any other.
Here is the core of the problem. You cannot consider factors scientifically if they are of equal value.
Maybe someday there will be a discipline for evaluating the costs, but for now no-matter the process it boils down to faith, not science.
I think it is obscene to equate human life to a monetary value but you are missing my point (my responsibility). What I am saying is economic mismanagement costs lives, environmental mismanagement costs lives, halting growth/development costs lives. All these factors need to be considered. No one is more important than any other.
Here is the core of the problem. You cannot consider factors scientifically if they are of equal value.
Maybe someday there will be a discipline for evaluating the costs, but for now no-matter the process it boils down to faith, not science.
Such “aid” has a proven and totally predictable history of ending up mostly monetized in the pockets of the local Big Man and Friends. Further, it takes many years for such initiatives to reach any sizable portion of the population. Meanwhile, they start dying. Theoretically, at some point the declining surviving population curve meets the slowly rising “delivered aid” curve and things stabilize.
But even such a Machiavellian approach misses the point. The “harm” that was predicted to be done by the CO2 generation prevented was minuscule by comparison with the death its prevention causes.
Not to mention that the “harm” is not just theoretical, but imaginary. Warm periods of recorded and paleo-history have been boom times. Ask the Ice Man, Romans, Vikings, and Medieval Warm Period (and Renaissance) inhabitants.
I don’t actually care which approach or principles Africa wants to use - they are small pocket change compared to developed countries.
Still probably distributing portable devices such as wind-turbines, solar panels or wind-belts should be faster than building a coal powered plant with a distribution, measuring and billing network.
Brian H - 27 May 2010 03:37 AM
Not to mention that the “harm” is not just theoretical, but imaginary. Warm periods of recorded and paleo-history have been boom times. Ask the Ice Man, Romans, Vikings, and Medieval Warm Period (and Renaissance) inhabitants.
If there is no such thing as global warming there is no need to disprove its effects.
If the historic data is unreliable how do we know what was the climate for Ice Man or others?
Still it is pretty interesting as there a only rainbows and flowers sticking from every statement that is supporting GW.
From my point of view a Cyprus summer is pretty hot ~40c. If you were living here, you might change your mind about wanting a warmer climate.
And btw green-illuminates have faked up some models that predict warming will not be so beneficial for plants, so probably Africa will get more rocky than green if we wont submit our freedoms immediately.
There must be very little that is non-refuted in the GW Skeptics vs Scientific Concensus space
Shish - he probably does not know…
Phil’s Dad - 27 May 2010 03:24 AM
Try http://shillwatch.wordpress.com/ They .examine left-leaning as well as right-leaning set ups. (They have a nice exposure of Sourcewatch for example)
Everyone probably has an exposure of everybody else (or will), so you have to go on faith sooner or later.
This is probably true (try this for example http://liberalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conservapedia) which makes argumentum ad hominem all the more pointless.
As Wiki says (so it must be true) “The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.”
Perhaps we can avoid it on this site, have faith in their motives and concentrate on discussing their work(s) instead.
This is probably true (try this for example http://liberalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conservapedia) which makes argumentum ad hominem all the more pointless.
As Wiki says (so it must be true) “The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.”
Perhaps we can avoid it on this site, have faith in their motives and concentrate on discussing their work(s) instead.
Pointing out potential bias or character flaws that are related to issue should not be “Ad hominem”.
If somebody is caught lying about their credentials, could you believe their research is valid?
There are huge amounts of lies, misinformation and propaganda on the internet about every controversial issue and people don’t learn in school how to evaluate the information critically or how to keep an open mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
If somebody is caught lying about their credentials, could you believe their research is valid?
Pure logic would say the two things are unrelated but I would agree with the spirit of what is implied by the question. You would certainly be justified in checking their work very carefully. However, many scientists have been attacked simply for being associated with a body that has an apparent vested interest in the outcome of the research. The problem then arises that everyone in the field of climate research has a vested interest in the field of climate research maintaining its high profile - and funding. What is source for the goose…
Pure logic would say the two things are unrelated but I would agree with the spirit of what is implied by the question. You would certainly be justified in checking their work very carefully. However, many scientists have been attacked simply for being associated with a body that has an apparent vested interest in the outcome of the research. The problem then arises that everyone in the field of climate research has a vested interest in the field of climate research maintaining its high profile - and funding. What is source for the goose…
There should be a difference in personal integrity if you are being paid to investigate something or to distort, obfuscate and form an opinion about something.
Everyone in any field of research can be pressured to produce fake results, and there is history of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
But what happens when the truth comes out… Would you believe every scientist in a field would risk such an outcome?
Not knowingly of course. The vast majority in that position probably quite genuinely believe their version of the truth. Faith?
Again I agree with the spirit of your first statement. It is too easy though to accuse scientists of distortion etc., not based on evidence of such behaviour but purely on the basis of who is sponsoring them. Otherwise sensible pieces of work may be dismissed simply because they were paid for by a particular type of company or organisation, without really understanding the merits of the work itself.
Worse still, people only go looking for such “suspect” associations, or “character flaws” if they disagree with the conclusions of the work and are less rigorous if it supports their predetermined views. Human nature.
Focus Fusion Society 
